alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Munawar Hidayatallah, Chief Executive Officer of Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     *Date: May 10 , 2006*By: */s/ Munawar H. Hidayatallah*         *Munawar H. Hidayatallah*    *Chief Executive Officer and Chairman*
#### § 105-64.504 Under what conditions will I be denied an accounting of disclosures?

The system manager will deny your request for an accounting of disclosures when the disclosures are to GSA officials or employees in the performance of their duties or disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act, for which no accounting is required; law enforcement agencies for law enforcement activities; and systems of records exempted by notice in the Federal Register. You may appeal a denial using the same procedures as those for denial of access to records, *see* Subpart 105-64.3.
#### § 102-75.395 May surplus airport property be conveyed or disposed of to a State, political subdivision, municipality, or tax-supported institution for a public airport?

Yes, section 13(g) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (49 U.S.C. § 47151) authorizes the disposal agency to convey or dispose of surplus airport property to a State, political subdivision, municipality, or tax-supported institution for use as a public airport.
§ 102-41.125 What choices do I have for retaining or disposing of unclaimed personal property? You may either retain or dispose of unclaimed abandoned personal property based on the following circumstances: ( a ) If your agency has a need for the property, you may retain it for official use if you have held the unclaimed property for 30 calendar days and the former owner has not filed a claim. After 30 days, title vests in the Government and you may retain the unclaimed property for official use. Large sedans and limousines which may only be retained for official use as authorized under part 102-34 of this subchapter B. See § 102-41.130 for how retained property must be handled.
( b ) If your agency doesn't need the property, you should determine whether it may be immediately abandoned or destroyed in accordance with the provisions at FMR 102-36.305 through 102-36.330. You are not required to hold unclaimed property for 30 days, if you decide to abandon or destroy it. Title to the property immediately vests in the Government in these circumstances. In addition to the circumstances when property may be abandoned or destroyed without public notice at FMR 102-36.330, unclaimed personal property may also be abandoned or destroyed without public notice when the estimated resale value of the property is less than $500. See § 102-41.135 for procedures to be followed if a claim is filed.
( c ) If the property is not retained for official use or abandoned or destroyed, you must report it to GSA as excess in accordance with § 102-41.140.
14th December
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Natural Resources Conservation Service 

# AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, New York State Office. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices, Section IV of the New York State NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) for review and comment. 

# SUMMARY:

It is the intention of NRCS to issue a revised conservation practice standard in its National Handbook of Conservation Practices. This revised standard is: Streambank and Shoreline Protection (NY580). 

# DATES:

Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing on June 21, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquire in writing to Richard D. Swenson, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, (NRCS), 441 S. Salina Street, Fifth Floor, Suite 354, Syracuse, New York, 13202-2450. 

A copy of this standard is available from the above individual. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 343 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State Technical Guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made. 

Dated: June 6, 2000. 

Richard D. Swenson, 

State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Syracuse, NY. 

[FR Doc. 00-15595 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-16-U
§ 101-39.103 Agency appeals. ( a ) Any executive agency may appeal or request exemption from any or all proposals affecting it which are contained in a determination. Appeals shall be submitted, in writing, within 45 calendar days from the date of the determination to the Director, OMB, with a copy to the Administrator of GSA. Appeals shall be accompanied by factual and objective supporting data and justification.
( b ) The Director, OMB, will review any determination which an executive agency has appealed and will make a final decision on that appeal. The Director, OMB, will decide within 75 calendar days after he or she receives the appeal, or as soon thereafter as practicable, on the basis of information contained in GSA's determination, the executive agency appeal, and any supplementary data submitted by GSA and the contesting agency. The Director, OMB, will send copies of decisions to GSA and to the heads of other executive agencies concerned.
( c ) With reference to each appeal, the decision of the Director, OMB, if he or she holds that the GSA's determination shall apply in whole or in part to the appealing agency, will state the extent to which the determination applies and the effective date of its application. To the extent that the decision on an appeal does not uphold GSA's determination the, determination will be of no force and effect.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.21 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982, 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983, and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

#### § 101-6.2100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”, for Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development programs of the General Services Administration (GSA).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22847-KMW

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

THE COLLECTION LLC,

d/b/a FERRARI OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

___________________________/

NOTICE OF PENDING SETTLEMENT 

Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, THE COLLECTION LLC, 

d/b/a FERRARI OF MIAMI (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to 

Local Rule 16.4, hereby give notice that Plaintiff and Defendant (“Parties”) have reached an 

agreement for the resolution of this matter and are in the process of finalizing settlement 

documents. The Parties respectfully request that the Court stay all matters and pending deadlines 

in this action and grant the Parties thirty (30) days to finalize the settlement documents and file 

proper pleadings to close this matter out.

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2022.

BY: /s/ Jason S. Weiss

 Jason S. Weiss

 Jason@jswlawyer.com

 Florida Bar No. 356890

 WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A.

 5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103

 Coral Springs, FL 33067

 Tel: (954) 573-2800

 Fax: (954) 573-2798

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BY: /s/ Sean A. Burstyn

Sean A. Burstyn

Florida Bar No. 1028778

BURSTYN LAW PLLC

sean.burstyn@burstynlaw.com

1101 Brickell Avenue

Suite S-700

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 204-9808 

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:22-cv-22847-KMW Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2022 Page 1 of 1
#### § 102-36.345 May we dispose of excess Flight Safety Critical Aircraft Parts (FSCAP)?

Yes, you may dispose of excess FSCAP, but first you must determine whether the documentation available is adequate to allow transfer, donation, or sale of the part in accordance with part 102-33, subpart D, of this chapter. Otherwise, you must mutilate undocumented FSCAP that has no traceability to its original equipment manufacturer and dispose of it as scrap. When reporting excess FSCAP, annotate the manufacturer, date of manufacture, part number, serial number, and the appropriate Criticality Code on the SF 120, and ensure that all available historical and maintenance records accompany the part at the time of issue.

[65 FR 31218, May 16, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 53572, Sept. 12, 2006]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40624

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-20-1

- - - - - - - - - -

May 13, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerardo Garza entered a conditional guilty plea to one count

of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 2. He appeals his

conviction, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion

to suppress the marijuana found in his vehicle at the time of his

arrest. He argues that the Border Patrol did not have a

reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when they stopped his
No. 97-40624

-2-

vehicle and, hence, that their subsequent search violated his

Fourth Amendment rights.

The totality of the circumstances shows that, prior to

stopping Garza’s vehicle, the Border Patrol was aware of specific

articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those

facts, that reasonably warranted suspicion that Garza’s truck was

involved in illegal activities. See United States v. BrignoniPonce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Inocencio, 40

F.3d 716, 722 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
§ 329.8 Improved or natural conditions of the waterbody. Determinations are not limited to the natural or original condition of the waterbody. Navigability may also be found where artificial aids have been or may be used to make the waterbody suitable for use in navigation. ( a ) *Existing improvements: artificial waterbodies.* ( 1 ) An artificial channel may often constitute a navigable water of the United States, even though it has been privately developed and maintained, or passes through private property. The test is generally as developed above, that is, whether the waterbody is capable of use to transport interstate commerce. Canals which connect two navigable waters of the United States and which are used for commerce clearly fall within the test, and themselves become navigable. A canal open to navigable waters of the United States on only one end is itself navigable where it in fact supports interstate commerce. A canal or other artificial waterbody that is subject to ebb and flow of the tide is also a navigable water of the United States.
( 2 ) The artificial waterbody may be a major portion of a river or harbor area or merely a minor backwash, slip, or turning area (see § 329.12(b) of this part).
( 3 ) Private ownership of the lands underlying the waterbody, or of the lands through which it runs, does not preclude a finding of navigability. Ownership does become a controlling factor if a privately constructed and operated canal is not used to transport interstate commerce nor used by the public; it is then not considered to be a navigable water of the United States. However, a private waterbody, even though not itself navigable, may so affect the navigable capacity of nearby waters as to nevertheless be subject to certain regulatory authorities.
( b ) *Non-existing improvements, past or potential.* A waterbody may also be considered navigable depending on the feasibility of use to transport interstate commerce after the construction of whatever “reasonable” improvements may potentially be made. The improvement need not exist, be planned, nor even authorized; it is enough that potentially they could be made. What is a “reasonable” improvement is always a matter of degree; there must be a balance between cost and need at a time when the improvement would be (or would have been) useful. Thus, if an improvement were “reasonable” at a time of past use, the water was therefore navigable in law from that time forward. The changes in engineering practices or the coming of new industries with varying classes of freight may affect the type of the improvement; those which may be entirely reasonable in a thickly populated, highly developed industrial region may have been entirely too costly for the same region in the days of the pioneers. The determination of reasonable improvement is often similar to the cost analyses presently made in Corps of Engineers studies.
### Page 4 e. Chemical Structure Diagram

R N + CH 3 H 3 C Cl O H Cl 

### Epi - Quat Intermediate 145 = Stearyl quat R = C 18 

### alkyl
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL D. CHISEBWE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 322 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL D. CHISEBWE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 323 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL D. CHISEBWE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 324 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 325 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[322 MAL 2022, 323 MAL 2022, 324 MAL 2022 and 325 MAL 2022] - 2

DANIEL D. CHISEBWE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all 

remaining issues. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction under 75 

Pa.C.S. §1511 (Carrying and exhibiting driver’s license on demand), 

where petitioner initially refused to present his driver’s license to the 

police upon demand during a lawful traffic stop?

(2) Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction under 75 

Pa.C.S. §1311 (Registration card to be signed and exhibited on 

demand), where petitioner initially refused to present his registration 

card to the police upon demand during a lawful traffic stop?
CamScanner

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM   Document 81   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2023   Page 1 of 1

https://digital-camscanner.onelink.me/P3GL/g26ffx3k
#### § 102-192.15 How are “I,” “you,” “me,” “we,” and “us” used in this part?

In this part, “I,” “me,” and “you” refer to the agency mail manager, a person working in a Federal mail operation, or the agency itself. Where the context does not make it entirely clear which is meant, the meaning is spelled out the first time a pronoun is used in the section. “We,” “us,” and “you” in the plural refer to your Federal agency.
#### § 102-75.405 What responsibilities does the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have after receiving a copy of the notice (and a copy of the Report of Excess Real Property (Standard Form 118)) given to eligible public agencies that there is surplus airport property?

As soon as possible after receiving the copy of the surplus notice, the FAA must inform the disposal agency of its determination. Then, the FAA must provide assistance to any eligible public agency known to have a need for the property for a public airport, so that the public agency may develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan of use and procurement for the property.
Law Offices 

## R OLLER 

## & B

AUER, PLLC

Lee A. Bauer Moffett B. Roller Washington Dulles International Airport 45005 Aviation Drive; Suite 200 Dulles, VA 20166 Phone: 202-331-3300 Fax: 202-331-3322 airlaw@rollerbauer.com November 22, 2010

Docket DOT-OST-1998-3304 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Office of Transportation Disaster Assistance National Transportation Safety Board 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W. Washington, DC 20594 Attention: Mr. Eric Grosof assistance@ntsb.gov

Re: Family Assistance Plan of Corporación Ygnus Air, S.A., d/b/a Gestair Cargo Please find enclosed a copy of the Family Assistance Plan for Corporación Ygnus Air, S.A., d/b/a Gestair Cargo, filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41313(c). Sincerely, ROLLER & BAUER, PLLC

By:

___________________________ Moffett B. Roller

Enclosure
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Suzanne Wheeler-McCorvey, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Martin O'Malley, Commissioner for 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-62104-Civ-Scola

Order Adopting Report and Recommendations

According to the Clerk’s directive, this case was referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a ruling on all pre-trial, 

nondispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any 

dispositive matters. Judge Goodman has issued his report, recommending that 

the Court grant Plaintiff Suzanne Wheeler-McCorvey’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 22), deny Defendant Martin O'Malley, Commissioner for 

Social Security Administration’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27), 

and reverse the administrative law judge’s unfavorable decision. (Mag. J. Rep. 

& Rec., ECF No. 30.) No objections have been filed and the time to do so has 

passed. After careful de novo review of the filings, the applicable law, and the 

record, the Court adopts Judge Goodman’s report and recommendations (ECF 

No. 30) in full, grants Wheeler-McCorvey’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 

No. 22), denies the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 

27), and remands this case to the administrative law judge for further 

proceedings.

Judge Goodman found that the ALJ improperly failed to address 

Wheeler-McCorvey’s fibromyalgia in assessing her claims of disability. (Rep. at 

14.) The Court agrees with Judge Goodman that this alone renders the ALJ’s 

decision unsupported by substantial evidence, warranting remand. Finding 

Judge Goodman’s analysis cogent and compelling, the Court adopts his report 

and recommendations in their entirety, remanding this case back to the ALJ 

for further proceedings consistent with Judge Goodman’s report. 

The Clerk is directed to close this case. All other pending motions, if any, 

Case 0:22-cv-62104-RNS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2024 Page 1 of 2
are denied as moot. 

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on January 29, 2024.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 0:22-cv-62104-RNS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2024 Page 2 of 2