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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Michael F. Holloran, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ELGRANDE INTERNATIONAL, 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; and



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.  The registrants other certifying officers and I are 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 control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control 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 over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth 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.  The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (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 significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting;



/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive

Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: October 17, 2005
§ 1990.121 Candidate list of potential occupational carcinogens. ( a ) *Contents.* The Secretary shall prepare a list of substances (the “Candidate List”) which are reported to be present in any American workplace and which, on the basis of a brief scientific review of available data, may be considered candidates for further scientific review and possible regulation as Category I Potential Carcinogens or Category II Potential Carcinogens. For the purposes of this paragraph, “available data” means: ( 1 ) The data submitted by any person;
( 2 ) Any data referred to by the Secretary of HHS or by the Director of NIOSH, either in the latest list entitled “Suspected Carcinogens” or any other communication;
( 3 ) Literature referred to in U.S. Public Health Service, Publication No. 149;
( 4 ) Data summarized and reviewed in Monographs of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization;
( 5 ) The Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory of Chemical Substances, published by the Administrator of EPA;
( 6 ) The Secretary of HHS's Annual Report to the President and the Congress as required by the Community Mental Health Centers Extension Act of 1978, section 404(a)(9), 42 U.S.C. 285.
( 7 ) Any other relevant data of which the Secretary has actual knowledge.
( b ) *Tentative classification.* The Secretary may tentatively designate substances on the Candidate List as candidates for classification as Category I Potential Carcinogens or as Category II Potential Carcinogens, or may list substances without a tentative designation, based on the brief scientific review of available data for the purpose of initiating a more extensive scientific review.
( c ) *No legal rights established.* The inclusion or exclusion of any substance from the Candidate List shall not be subject to judicial review nor be the basis of any legal action, nor shall the exclusion of any substance from the list prevent the regulation of that substance as a potential occupational carcinogen. The inclusion of a substance on the Candidate List and its possible tentative designation as a Category I Potential Carcinogen or a Category II Potential Carcinogen therein do not reflect a final scientific determination that the substance is, in fact, a Category I Potential Carcinogen or a Category II Potential Carcinogen. It is a policy determination based on the brief scientific review that the Secretary should conduct a thorough review of all relevant scientific data concerning the substance.
Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 48 FR 243, Jan. 4, 1983, in § 1990.121, paragraphs (a) and (b) were stayed in order to evaluate the impact of publishing the Candidate Lists and Priority List and to reconsider the criteria used in establishing the lists (see also 47 FR 187, Jan. 5, 1982).
**Exhibit 24****THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.**DIRECTORS’POWER OF ATTORNEY     Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson & Sessions Co.,an Ohio corporation, which anticipates filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,Washington, D. C., an annual report of the Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 30, 2006 (“2006 Form 10-K”) under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, asamended, does hereby constitute and appoint James J. Abel and Michael J. Merriman, Jr., jointly andseverally, with full power and substitution and re-substitution, as attorney(s) to sign for him andin his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 2006 Form 10-K, including any amendments andexhibits thereto, with full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and thingswhatsoever necessary and required to be done in connection with such signing as fully to allintents and purposes as he would do if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving the actsof said attorney(s) and any substitutes(s) therefor in connection with such signing:     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands as of the 15th day ofFebruary 2007.   /s/ James T. Bartlett James T. Bartlett
#### DICKERSON STEEL CO v RIDGLEY

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No. 889.

Decided July 8, 1929

Messrs. J. A. Wortman and A. J. Kause, Dayton, for Steel Co.

Mr. Irvin C. Delscamp, Dayton, for Ridgley.

*111ALLREAD, J.

Plaintiff in error brings a suit to this court on petition in error. No bill of exceptions was filed. The question, there-fore, is whether the petition upon which the plaintiff Ridgley relies is sufficient to sustain the verdict. We have read the petition, and we are of opinion that it is sufficient.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be affirmed.

Kunkle and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EWIN HENRIQUES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-89-P, CA-97-78-3-P) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ernest Gronquist, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Douglas Scott Broyles, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ewin Henriques seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Henriques , Nos. CR-93-89-P; CA-97-78-3-P (W.D.N.C. May 4, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Premchand Rampersaud, Respondent, and American Transit Insurance Company, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 618]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), entered May 4, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted petitioner’s application to confirm an uninsured motorist arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross petition to vacate or modify such award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whatever the merits of respondent insurer’s claim to a set-off, it is no basis for vacating or modifying an arbitral award (CPLR 7511 [b], [c]; *Matter of Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v Nester,*90 NY2d 255, 265). Respondent’s reliance on *Matter of Brijmohan v State Farm Ins. Co.*(92 NY2d 821) is misplaced. *Brijmohan*held that an arbitrator exceeded his powers (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]) by awarding an amount in excess of the policy limits, which sort of claim of arbitral error was not waived since it was raised in opposition to the application for confirmation. Here, however, the arbitrator made an award within the policy limits. Respondent’s claim, that it was entitled to a set-off in its favor, is waived unless it is made the subject of a request for judicial intervention prior to arbitration of the underlying claim for insurance proceeds *(Matter of Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v Nester, supra).*Respondent never moved to stay arbitration upon the ground of its entitlement to a setoff nullifying any potential award in arbitration. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.
Agreement Between Grand Canyon Trust and Salt River Project Regarding Proposed Permit AZ 08-01. Navajo Generating Station

The Grand Canyon Trust and Salt River Project (SAP) hereby agree to the followtng to resolve the Trust's November 14, 2008 comments on EPA s proposed PSD permit for the Navajo Station

. The Grand Canyon Trust agrees to formally with(iraw 1ts November 14 2008 comment let1er to EPA by November 19. 2008. SAP understands that the Grand Canyon Trust stands by its support for the tnstatlatton of low-NOx burners and separated overfire air at the Navajo Generating Statton as long as their installation and operation will not prejudice in any way the tmplementation of more effective NOx and parttculate matter controls {mcluding SCA or SNCR. and baghouse technology) to more fully address NavaJO s vtstbtlity tmpacts under the reasonable attnbution and regional haze programs Within 30 days of the withdrawal , SAP agrees to submit an application tor a permit revision to EPA stipulating that during the first 24 months of operatton after each NavaJO untt is retrofitted with low-NOx burners and separated overftre atr, the tar get CO emission limit is 0 15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average and the enforceable CO emission limtt is 0.42 lbiMMBtu on a 30-day rolling average for each retrofitted unit. SAP agrees that during the first 12 months of operation after each untt ts retrofitted wtth low-NOx burners and separated overfire air SAP will work to ach ieve the lowest optimum NOx and CO em1sston levels. Wtthtn 30 days of complet1ng the 12-month tuntng period, SAP w1ll submit a written report to EPA with a copy to the Grand Canyon Trust, that sets forth the CO and NOx emtssion data and descr·bes the abtlity of the unit to meet the 0.15 tb 'MMBtu CO target emission lim1t at vanous corresponding NOx emiss1on rates. SAP agrees that after the first 24 months of operation of each retrofit1ed unit. the enforceable CO permit limit shall be 0

. 15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolhng average unless SAPs report demonstrates to the satisfaction of EPA that compliance with the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit is not possible or that compliance at thts lim1t tS detrimental to optimization of the NOx emission rate To the extent that EPA agrees that compliance is not possible or is detrimental to the NOx emiss1on rate. SAP w1ll agree to a revised CO emission limit that reflects the lowest optimum CO emission level that tn no evenl shall be greater than 0 42 lbfMM Btu on a 30-day rolling average

. The revised CO emtss1on limit shall become effective 30 days after EPA's action. In the event that EPA has not made a determinatton within the 24 month time frame noted above then the enforceable CO emission hmit wtll be a 30-day rolling average equal to the hmit proposed by

- 1

-SRP tn the wntten report thni w.1s submttted to EPl\ unt1l such 

### ttme EP.A. makes a determmatton and t!lcorporates 1t tnto tho !Jerrmt

I

# i~~~~~~-·Jht 6_v4! Rtchard Hayslip-· \

# ~Sill~~ B tIt c.d" n E)rerut,ve D1 recto• Assoc1ate General Manayer GranrJ Canyon Trust

Dated 

## l 1' I 

### l -) : ( 

# t Dated ''/

# ~

# aY

-
ACCEPTED 12-15-00043-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 3/20/2015 2:16:27 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK
S. 996 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to expand passenger facility fee eligibility 

for certain noise compatibility projects. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXPANDED PASSENGER FACILITY FEE ELIGIBILITY FOR 

NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROJECTS. 

Section 40117(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(7) NOISE MITIGATION FOR CERTAIN SCHOOLS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the uses specified 

in paragraphs (1), (4), and (6), the Secretary may authorize 

a passenger facility fee imposed under paragraph (1) or 

(4) at a large hub airport that is the subject of an amended 

judgment and final order in condemnation filed on January 

7, 1980, by the Superior Court of the State of California 

for the county of Los Angeles, to be used for a project 

to carry out noise mitigation for a building, or for the 

replacement of a relocatable building with a permanent 

building, in the noise impacted area surrounding the airport at which such building is used primarily for educational purposes, notwithstanding the air easement 

granted or any terms to the contrary in such judgment 

and final order, if— 

‘‘(i) the Secretary determines that the building is 

adversely affected by airport noise; 

‘‘(ii) the building is owned or chartered by the 

school district that was the plaintiff in case number 

986,442 or 986,446, which was resolved by such judgment and final order; 

‘‘(iii) the project is for a school identified in 1 

of the settlement agreements effective February 16, 

2005, between the airport and each of the school districts; 

‘‘(iv) in the case of a project to replace a relocatable 

building with a permanent building, the eligible project 

costs are limited to the actual structural construction 

costs necessary to mitigate aircraft noise in instructional classrooms to an interior noise level meeting 

current standards of the Federal Aviation Administration; and 

‘‘(v) the project otherwise meets the requirements 

of this section for authorization of a passenger facility 

fee. 
S. 996—2 

‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS.—In subparagraph 

(A)(iv), the term ‘eligible project costs’ means the difference 

between the cost of standard school construction and the 

cost of construction necessary to mitigate classroom noise 

to the standards of the Federal Aviation Administration.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 1960.78 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to establish a comprehensive program for the evaluation of Federal employee occupational safety and health programs. This subpart includes the responsibilities of agency heads in conducting self-evaluations of the effectiveness of their occupational safety and health programs, and the responsibilities of the Secretary in evaluating the extent to which each agency head has developed and implemented agency programs in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12196 and this part.
( b ) Agency heads shall develop and implement a program for evaluating the effectiveness of their agency's occupational safety and health program. An annual summary report shall be submitted to the Secretary covering self-evaluations conducted during the previous year.
( c ) The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation of each Federal agency's occupational safety and health program. Evaluations shall be conducted on a regular schedule to determine the performance levels of each agency's program. The Secretary shall submit to the President each year: A summary report of the status of the occupational safety and health of Federal employees; Department of Labor evaluations, together with agency responses, of individual agency progress and problems in correcting unsafe and unhealthful working conditions, and recommendations for improving agency's performance.
#### HARVEY’S RUBBER & SUPPLY CO v KILBANE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10609.

Decided April 14, 1930

Carl L. Erb, Cleveland, for Rubber Co.

John E. Elder, Cleveland, for Kilbane.

*298VICKERY, PJ.

We have gone over this record, heard the arguments of counsel, and we can see no error in the record that would warrant us in disturbing the same, even if the note had been given and it was to bear no interest, when the note became due, it would have drawn interest at six percent from the date of its falling due until it was paid, and the mere fact that no, note was given would not change the legal effect of the defendant’s' right to have interest upon money that he was compelled to pay for and on behalf of the plaintiff company. The obligation as between Kilbane and Harvey’s Rubber and Supply Company to The Kelly Springfield Tire Company became the obligation of Harvey’s Rubber and Supply Company and, therefore, although Kilbane was primarily liable upon it, if he paid it, he would pay it as surety and would be entitled to compensation from Harvey’s Rubber and Supply Company which in effect became the principal debtor as between it and Kilbane and, therefore, when Kilbane paid this money, he was entitled to interest, upon the various sums still remaining unpaid at the time payments were made up to the time when the action was brought, and the court having reduced the amount from Six Hundred and Forty One Dollars to Three Hundred and Fifty Five Dollars or thereabouts, we can only assume that the court figured the matter accurately and came to a right conclusion.

There, being no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
§ 2200.56 Depositions. ( a ) *General.* Depositions of parties, intervenors, or witnesses shall be allowed only by agreement of all the parties or on order of the Commission or the Judge following the filing of a motion of a party stating good and just reasons. All depositions shall be before an officer authorized to administer oaths and affirmations at the place of examination. The deposition shall be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30.
( b ) *When to file.* A motion to take depositions may be filed after the filing of the first responsive pleading or motion that delays the filing of an answer, such as a motion to dismiss.
( c ) *Notice of taking.* Any depositions allowed by the Commission or the Judge may be taken after 14 days' written notice to the other party or parties. The 14-day notice requirement may be waived by the parties pursuant to § 2200.52(a)(4)(i).
( d ) *Method of recording and expenses.* The party that notices the deposition must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the Commission or the Judge orders otherwise, testimony may be recorded by audio, audiovisual, or stenographic means. Witnesses whose depositions are taken and the person recording the deposition shall each be paid the same fees that are paid for like services in the federal courts. Any party may arrange to transcribe a deposition. The party noticing the deposition shall pay the recording costs, any witness fees, and mileage expense. Deposition subpoenas shall comply with § 2200.65.
( e ) *Use of depositions.* Depositions taken under this rule may be used for discovery, to contradict or impeach the testimony of a deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32. An audio or audiovisual deposition offered into evidence in whole or in part must be accompanied by a transcription of the deposition. All transcription costs must be borne by the party offering the deposition into evidence.
( f ) *Excerpts from depositions to be offered at hearing.* Except when used for purposes of impeachment, at least 7 days prior to the hearing, the parties or counsel shall furnish to the Judge and all opposing parties or counsel the transcribed excerpts from depositions (by page and line number) which they expect to introduce at the hearing. Four working days later, the adverse party or counsel for the adverse party shall furnish to the Judge and all opposing parties or counsel additional transcribed excerpts from the depositions (by page and line number) which they expect to be read pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4), as well as any objections (by page and line number) to opposing party's or counsel's depositions. With reasonable notice to the Judge and all parties or counsel, other excerpts may be read.
#### § 22.25 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena shall pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage shall accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the authority, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
[No. 19588-1-III.

Division Three.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Arnold L. Wellman, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Ferry County, No. 00-1-00005-7, Larry M. Kristianson, J., entered September 12, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kato, J.