alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.01**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Benjamin C. Weston,Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill Lynch Alternative InvestmentsLLC, the general partner of ML Select Futures I L.P. certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K of ML Select Futures I L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annualreport;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of  the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 30, 2007                  |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
| By                                    | /s/ Benjamin C. Weston |   |
| Benjamin C. Weston                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

----
§ 102-37.505 How does a donee apply for and receive reimbursement for unneeded property returned to a SASP? If the donee has incurred repair expenses for property it is returning to a SASP and wishes to be reimbursed for them, it will inform the SASP of this. The SASP will recommend for GSA approval a reimbursement amount, taking into consideration the benefit the donee has received from the use of the property and making appropriate deductions for that use. ( a ) If this property is subsequently transferred to a Federal agency, the receiving agency will be required to reimburse the donee as a condition of the transfer.
( b ) If the property is sold, the donee will be reimbursed from the sales proceeds.
§ 962.8 Rights of parties. Any party to a hearing under this part shall have the right ( a ) To be accompanied, represented, and advised, by a representative of his own choosing;
( b ) To participate in any prehearing or post-hearing conference held by the Presiding Officer;
( c ) To agree to stipulations of fact or law, which shall be made part of the record;
( d ) To make opening and closing statements at the hearing;
( e ) To present oral and documentary evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( f ) To submit rebuttal evidence;
( g ) To conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts; and
( h ) To submit written briefs, proposed findings of fact, and proposed conclusions of law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998 
<CASH>                                              37,787 
<SECURITIES>                                       432,165 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       35,716 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   523,847 
<PP&E>                                             753,974 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      31,941 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,277,821 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,015,864 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                           155,595 
<OTHER-SE>                                               0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,277,821 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   236,439 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,061,643 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (825,204)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 375,410 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (825,204)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (825,204)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      (825,204)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.053)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.053)
                                               


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING UPCOMING DEADLINES BY ONE WEEK

THIS MOTION comes before the Court on the government’s request [ECF No. 194] 

for a one-week extension of time of upcoming deadlines pending the issuance of the 

Eleventh Circuit’s mandate in Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, No. 22-13005 

(11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2022) (per curiam). The Court reviewed the government’s motion, 

Plaintiff’s opposition [ECF No. 195], the government’s reply [ECF No. 196], and the full

record. Upon review, the Court GRANTS the motion [ECF No. 194] and EXTENDS

upcoming deadlines by one week as follows. 

1. The government’s response to Plaintiff’s motion to unseal the search-warrant 

affidavit (D.E. 189) be and hereby is extended to and including December 13, 2022.

2. The parties’ response to the News Media’s Joint Motion for Access to 

Unredacted Search Warrant Affidavit (D.E. 192) be and hereby is extended to and including 

December 21, 2022.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 196-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 2
3. The Special Master’s report and recommendation (D.E. 125, at 5) be and 

hereby is extended to and including December 23, 2022. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this ___ day of 

December 2022.

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 196-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-33.10 May we request approval to deviate from these rules? ( a ) You may request approval to deviate from the rules in this part. See §§ 102-2.60 through 102-2.110 of this chapter for guidance on requesting a deviation. In most cases, GSA will respond to your written request within 30 days;
( b ) GSA may not grant deviations from the requirements of OMB Circular A-126, “Improving the Management of Government Aircraft;” and
( c ) You should consult with GSA's Aviation Policy Division before you request a deviation.
# AIBI C IDIEIFIGI B I~IJIKI’I M INIoIPIQI R IsITlul vlvvl X I¥

1 2 

### 3

5

1.~3 1.~4 1.~5 1~6 1.~7 18 19 2O 21 22

24 25
27

31 

### RHS # 533373 

# Incident Report and First Aid, Reportable Vehicle Incident & Out of Service Review

[] Incident [] Near Miss
PSL: [PE-Frac~Acid Primary Incident Type [] Injury/Illness [] Vehicle [] Environmental [] Property/Equip Damage [] External *NOV or Citation Incident Type(Check any that apply) [] Radiation Involved [] Explosives Involved 

### Location: [Pampa
Secondary Incident Type [] Injury/Illness [] Environmental [] Property/Equip Damage [] External *NOV or Citation
*Notice of Violation 

### Description of activity that was occurring prior to incident: Pumping stage 7 on 8 stage horizantal frac. Date and Time InformationDate Time Occurrence Date & Time: 30-Nov-09 5:00 Reported Date & Time: 30-Nov-09 8:00 Sales Order #: Customer: Chesapeake Lease & Well #: Ruby Lee 102H City: County: Wheeler State: ~Texa~s -

Description of incident: HRB went down as a result of fabco failure and had to be rigged down to hook up another blender. During the rig down process 450 gal of FR water was spilled on location. After the job was complete, arrangements were made in cooperation with the customer to clean up the spill with a vacuum truck and take to disposal.

Resulting from incident review, what is the root cause & corrective action to mitigate recurrence: Root Cause: With no hydraulic power, the crew could not blow the fluid out of the blender. Corrective Action: The crew will work with the customer to determine if a vacuum truck can be made available to empty the blender before rigging it down or contain the spill for clean up after the job.

Behavior Based Analysis

At Risk Behavior 1 At Risk Behavior 2 At Risk Behavior 3
Action Items Review incident with frac supervisors and council employees to work with customer to help prevent or contain fluid when rigging down equipment. 

# i L L J Responsible Person Target Date Chris Estes 5-Dec-09

ReportPrepared By: John Ebersole Date: 12-Dec-~9

&[FILE]


# HESI300324

### AB

Baroid Drilling Fluids Baroid Surface Solutions Business Development Oementing Oompletion Tools Drill Bits & Services PE-Coiled Tubing PE-Frac~Acid PE-Nitrogen PE-HWO Pinnacle Software & Asset Solutions Sperry-LWD/MWD Sperry-Directional Drilling ~VPS-Cased Hole ~VPS-Open Hole ~VPS-Tubing Conveyed Alderson Alvarado Burns Flat Duncan Elk City Fort Smith Hugoton Jacksboro Liberal Magnet Cove Oklahoma City Pampa Pauls Valley Pocasset Searcy/Kinsett Special Services Woodward

&[FILE]


# HESI300325&[FILE]


# HESI300326&[FILE]


# HESI300327
#### § 101-30.500 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes the policies and procedures governing the maintenance of the Federal Catalog System.

[31 FR 11106, Aug. 20, 1966]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

d0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

139353(21) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139353 

 COA: 289555 

Charlevoix CC: 03-081609-FH 

CHRISTOPHER DAVID THOMPSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 29, 

2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
EXHIBIT 31 

I, Nora Corraco, chief executiveofficer and chief financial officer of ASP Ventures Corp. (“Registrant”) certifythat: 

1.              I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (“Report”) of          Registrant; 

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 period 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 my supervision, to ensure that          material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated          subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly          during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

b)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness          of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered          by this Report based on such evaluation; and 

c)              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 Registrants 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 my most recent evaluation, 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to          adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and          report financial information; and 

b)              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over          financial reporting. 

Date: December 12, 2005 

/s/ Nora CoccaroNora
Study Title

Copper Transport and Fate Simulations and Evaluation of Estimated 

Environmental Concentrations for Copper-Based Antimicrobial 

Compounds 

Authors

Mark Velleux, Paul Paquin, 

Aaron Redman, and Robert Santore 

Prepared By

HydroQual Inc. 

1200 MacArthur Boulevard 

Mahwah, NJ 07430 

Prepared For

American Chemistry Council 

Copper Task Force 

700 Second Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Report Date

December 21, 2009 

Notice to Readers – August 3, 2011

Watershed simulations described in the report were performed using the Twodimensional Runoff, Erosion, and Export (TREX) watershed model (Velleux, 2005; 

Velleux et al. 2006; Velleux et al. 2008) because of its abilities to simulate chemical 

transport at the watershed scale and represent a diverse landscape with spatiallyvariable chemical inputs. The model name was changed to Two-dimensional 

Exposure and Rainfall-Runoff Analysis (TERRA) in June 2011. This name change 

was made to avoid confusion with the Terrestrial Residue Exposure (T-REX) model that 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) 

uses to estimate pesticide concentrations on avian and mammalian food items. 

Although the model name has been changed, the model is still referred to as “TREX” 

throughout the report as well as in the model computer code, inputs, and outputs.
#### § 102-42.100 How can we obtain an excess gift or decoration from another agency?

To obtain an excess gift or decoration from another agency, you would complete a Standard Form (SF) 122, Transfer Order Excess Personal Property, or any other transfer order form approved by GSA, for the desired item(s) and submit the form to the General Services Administration, Property Management Division (FBP), Washington, DC 20406.
§ 102-42.125 How is donation of gifts or decorations accomplished? The State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP) must initiate the process on behalf of a prospective donee (e.g., units of State or local governments and eligible non-profit organizations) by: ( a ) Completing a Standard Form (SF) 123, Transfer Order Surplus Personal Property, and submitting it to General Services Administration, Property Management Division (FBP), Washington, DC 20406. Conspicuously mark the SF 123 with the words, “FOREIGN GIFTS AND/OR DECORATIONS.”
( b ) Attaching an original and two copies of a letter of intent to each SF 123 submitted to GSA. An authorized representative of the proposed donee must sign and date the letter, setting forth a detailed plan for use of the property. The letter of intent must provide the following information: ( 1 ) Identifying the donee applicant, including its legal name and complete address, its status as a public agency or as an eligible nonprofit tax-exempt activity, and the name, title, and telephone number of its authorized representative;
( 2 ) A description of the gift or decoration requested, including the gift's commercially appraised value or estimated fair market value if no commercial appraisal was performed; and
( 3 ) Details on the planned use of the gift or decoration, including where and how it will be used and how it will be safeguarded.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Alleviation Medical Services, P.C. as Assignee of OLGA MAYERSDORF, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>A Central Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered February 22, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that defendant's moving papers failed to establish as a matter of law that the letters scheduling the independent medical examinations (IMEs) of plaintiff's assignor had been timely and properly mailed to the assignor (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to an insurer's liability on a policy (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]). Although defendant attempted, in its reply papers, to cure the defect, the affirmation of defendant's counsel was insufficient to do so since counsel lacked personal knowledge. In any event, defendant could not establish its entitlement to judgment by submitting, as part of its reply papers, sufficient evidence in admissible form to cure defects in its moving papers (<a href="../2006/2006_52523.htm" target="_blank"><i>see North Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co.</i>, 14 Misc 3d 130</a>[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52523[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d &amp; 11th Jud Dists 2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: March 17, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Rockingham

No. 79-148

#### Ronald E. Edin v. Lillian B. Edin

October 24, 1979

*Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple,*of Dover *(Stephen A. White*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Thomas M. Keane,*of Portsmouth, by brief arid orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The parties to this action were divorced in February 1974. In accordance with a stipulation incorporated in the decree, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant $100 per week for the support of the four minor children, “said support shall be continued... until the age of twenty-one.”

In 1978 Lillian filed a petition to increase the support payments alleging, *inter alia,*that Ronald had unilaterally reduced payments to $50 per week. After a hearing, the Master *(Nicholas G. Copadis,*Esq.) recommended that payments be continued at $100 per week but that $25 of that payment be made directly to one child, a college student residing away from home. A decree was entered in accordance with this recommendation by *Mullavey,*J.

The plaintiff then moved to set aside the decree on the basis that payments should be reduced because one of the children living with his mother was self-supporting and that a daughter had been living with him but was now in college. On the master’s recommendation, the motion was denied by *Randall,*J., who transferred the plaintiffs exceptions.

The court was correct in ruling that the original decree did not provide for any reduction in support due to employment of a child under the age of twenty-one years. There being no transcript of the *784evidence before the master, we cannot say that there was any abuse of discretion in the failure to reduce payments by modification based on changed circumstances. *Cotter v. Cotter,*119 N.H. 426, 402 A.2d 198 (1979); *Greenglass v. Greenglass,*118 N.H. 570, 391 A.2d 890 (1978). Even accepting as true the allegations of the plaintiffs motion to set aside the decree, modification would not be compelled.

*Exceptions overruled.*
#### § 102-74.135 Who selects construction and alteration projects that are to be performed?

The Administrator of General Services selects construction and alteration projects to be performed.