alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, R. Ray Bell, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Marine Petroleum Trust; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The registrant’s Trustee and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s Trustee and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to theextent I consider reasonable on information provided to me by various workinginterest owners.        Date: September 24, 2004 /s/ R. RAY BELL                     R. Ray Bell                     Principal Accounting Officer
NO. 07-03-0419-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 18, 2004

	______________________________

	IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

	SHARON MARIE SAYES AND EMMETT CARL SAYES

	AND IN THE 	INTEREST OF C.M.S. AND 	B.M.S., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 48,847-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On July 27, 2004, appellant, Emmett Sayes, filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).  The motion includes a certificate of conference indicating that appellee is not opposed to the motion.   No response to the motion has been received.  

	Accordingly, without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.  Rule 42.1(a).  

	All costs are assessed to appellant.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

							Phil Johnson

							Chief Justice
Exhibit 31.2I, Charles P. Cooley, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Lubrizol Corporation;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 thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) 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 uponsuch evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I 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 adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; 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./s/ Charles P. Cooley
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 25, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41389

MICHAEL WAYNE HALEY,

Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the Untied States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

__________________________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the United

States Supreme Court by an Opinion entered May 3, 2004, in 124 S.Ct. 1847, 1852 (2004), held that

a federal court faced with allegations of actual innocence, whether of the sentence or o f t he crime

charged, must first address all nondefaulted claims of comparable relief and other grounds for cause

to excuse the procedural default. Dretke and the State of Texas conceded before the Supreme Court2

that Haley has a viable and significant ineffective assistance of counsel claim, success on the merits

would give respondent all of the relief that he seeks, i.e., re-sentencing, and also would provide cause

to excuse the procedural default of his sufficiency of the evidence claim, and that the State will not

reincarcerate Haley during the pendency of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly,

the judgment of this court, 306 F.3d 257, was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings

consistent with its opinion. It is hereby ordered that this case be remanded to the district court for

further proceedings to expeditiously resolve Haley’s claim.
§ 4207.5 Requirements for abatement. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in § 4207.9 (d) and (e) (pertaining to acquisitions, mergers and other combinations), an eligible employer that completely withdraws from a multiemployer plan and subsequently reenters the plan shall have its liability for that withdrawal abated in accordance with § 4207.3(c) if the employer resumes covered operations under the plan, and the number of contribution base units with respect to which the employer has an obligation to contribute under the plan for the measurement period (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section) after it resumes covered operations exceeds 30 percent of the number of contribution base units with respect to which the employer had an obligation to contribute under the plan for the base year (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section).
( b ) *Measurement period.* If the employer resumes covered operations under the plan at least six full months prior to the end of a plan year and would satisfy the test in paragraph (a) based on its contribution base units for that plan year, then the measurement period shall be the period from the date it resumes covered operations until the end of that plan year. If the employer would not satisfy this test, or if the employer resumes covered operations under the plan less than six full months prior to the end of the plan year, the measurement period shall be the first twelve months after it resumes covered operations.
( c ) *Base year.* For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the employer's number of contribution base units for the base year is the average number of contribution base units for the two plan years in which its contribution base units were the highest, within the five plan years immediately preceding the year of its complete withdrawal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM ITEM 8 OF THIS FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,100
<INVENTORY>                                     79,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,720
<PP&E>                                       1,859,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                 912,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,212,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,719
<BONDS>                                        495,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,515
<OTHER-SE>                                     342,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,212,753
<SALES>                                        774,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               774,349
<CGS>                                          644,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  644,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,984
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,984
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
(77 South. 1002)

#### ALLEN v. STATE.

(3 Div. 312.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; jjeon *694McCord', "Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD,, J.

The record contains no bill of exceptions,- and after a careful examination we find no error in the record. Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 201/49)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

Past publications

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

These texts are available on:

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<CASH>                                143
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      41,200
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,428
<INVENTORY>                        90,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  129,467
<PP&E>                            245,624
<DEPRECIATION>                    124,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    331,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              67,466
<BONDS>                           107,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                            83
<COMMON>                               41
<OTHER-SE>                         17,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      331,110
<SALES>                           335,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  335,381
<CGS>                             318,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     326,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   14,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       83
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 11,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (16,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (6,254)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (9,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (9,985)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (2.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (2.50)


</TABLE>
06/01/2012 10:11 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS 141 001/002 

1UIZ 

May9, 2012 

RECEIVED 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Room924A 

Washington, DC 20593 

To Whom It May Concern and Mr. Berman, 

MAY J 6 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

We are in receipt of a letter dated February 5, 2012, that we did not receive until May 3, 2012. 

Mr. Berman has confirmed there is no evidence of confirmation of receipt of this letter on or around the 

February time frame. 

This is to notify you that the facts reported in this notice of proposed civil penalty are incorrect. We did 

not install the Garmin GPS 496. The purpose of this letter is to request a formal hearing in Richmond, 

Virginia referencing the attached notice of proposed ci\lil penalty. 

Many thanks for your attention to this matter. 

HeloAir, Inc. 

CC: Mr. Berman 

RWB/jh 

5721 Gulfstream Rd., Richmond, VA 23250 • Office ('804) 226-3400 • ('S~X) FLY-HELO • F<~x (804) 226<i4<J4 

www.heloair.com 
06/01/2012 10:11 FAX 2024835142 FAA + OMS 

Re"ional Couc~cl for the Eastern Rcgiuu 

Fl.!dcrHI Aviation Administration 

1 A viaHou Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Hc::loair, ln.::. ;1.()11EA2100!!1 

Suhj~ct~ Final Notice ofPtOp<)~ed Civil Penalry 

Rcspon ~r,_Ana,.;:lunc::nL 

In reply to Y•~ou· Hnal Notice of Pr,,p,·,~~d <..'Jvil PenalLy lleloair, Inc. elect~ to proceed as indicated by its cilc:ck. mark bcsid<l the numh.,r~d paragt:\ph belllw: 

1. (_) 

2. (!,/ 

Hdoair, Inc. hereby $Ubmits the amount of the proposed civil penalty wilh the undem:~.nd(ng tb.aL an ()rclc!' As~essing C:ivil 

Penalty will be: issued in rhat amount. 

1-leloair, Inc. 1\c,·cby rtlqucm ~ formal he~ ring iu accordance Wilh Sec lion 13.16 of thd Federal A. viation Rcg!Jiatiou~. 

By sending thiN form 1u the federal Aviation Admi.u.i!itration, Eastc::m Region, Ilcloair, Inc. 

al~o he~·ehy l'4;J:Cific:i tha~ li copy of t.llis form bas b~ filed wiLl• lhc Hearing 'Ouc.:bt · CleJ•'k 

(Htt~riug Docket, Fcdeml 1\viutlon Adlnlnlstralion, liOO Iudcpcndcmce Av<:nuc, S.W., Room 

?24A, WashingtOil, DC 20591, AUI'!ntion: Hcaciu; Uo<~k.et Clerk). 

~~_n<~te th:~l t\elQ<lir, Inc. will got he cmitl<:'d loa hcari!lg if it filL~~ !luo_form with rh~federal Avi~ti9u Admini~rcmion. 13:L,tcrn 

.Region. WITHOUT b,.ving filed thi~ form QT a wo"itl(:n regue.~t fo(" h~urine wjr~' the HEARING DO(:KRT CLERK. 

trJe ~t(/(~ 

~--l k ft'~ A ~ 

~ 002/002
# Úradný vestník C 294/30.

| | ISSN 1725-5236 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 294 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 4730. novembra 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5236

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 294

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 4730. novembra 2004

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informácie |
| | Komisia |
| 2004/C 294/1 | Konečné ročné účty Európskych spoločenstiev – rozpočtový rok 2003 – konsolidované výkazy implementácie rozpočtu a konsolidované finančné výkazy | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

I   Informácie

Komisia

2004/C 294/1

Konečné ročné účty Európskych spoločenstiev – rozpočtový rok 2003 – konsolidované výkazy implementácie rozpočtu a konsolidované finančné výkazy

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

I Informácie

Komisia

| 30.11.2004 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2004

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 294/1

---

Konečné ročné účty Európskych spoločenstiev – rozpočtový rok 2003 – konsolidované výkazy implementácie rozpočtu a konsolidované finančné výkazy

(2004/C 294/01)

Konečné ročné účty Európskych spoločenstiev – rozpočtový rok 2003 – konsolidované výkazy implementácie rozpočtu a konsolidované finančné výkazy – zatiaľ neboli preložené do [lotyšského, litovského, estónskeho, poľského, maďarského, českého, slovenského, slovinského, maltského jazyka]. Pôvodné účty v anglickom jazyku sú však prístupné v elektronickej podobe na stránke EUR-Lex, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en>, in: Úradný vestník EÚ C 294, 30. november 2004.

---
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 842 

To authorize to be appropriated $9,200,000 for fiscal year 2008 to acquire 

real property and carry out military construction projects at Cannon 

Air Force Base, New Mexico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2007 

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize to be appropriated $9,200,000 for fiscal year 

2008 to acquire real property and carry out military 

construction projects at Cannon Air Force Base, New 

Mexico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT MILITARY CON4 STRUCTION PROJECTS AT CANNON AIR 

5 FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO. 

6 (a) AUTHORITY.—Using amounts appropriated pur7 suant to the authorization of appropriations under sub8 section (b), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 842 IS

1 real property and carry out military construction projects 

2 at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, as specified 

3 under such subsection. 

4 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

5 are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for 

6 military construction and land acquisition for the Depart7 ment of the Air Force the following amounts: 

8 (1) For the construction or alteration of a C– 

9 130 aircraft hangar at Cannon Air Force, New Mex10 ico, $1,700,000. 

11 (2) For the construction of an MC–130 Flight 

12 Simulator Facility at Cannon Air Force, New Mex13 ico, $7,500,000. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-383/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Waste management - Rodano waste disposal site - Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4 and 8)

(2004/C 262/11)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-383/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC brought on 18 October 2002 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.

----
(75 South. 1006)

#### HOPPER v. CARTER.

(3 Div. 292.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; Deon McCord, Judge.

Gipson & Booth, of Prattville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on certificate.