alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1**I, Steve Holliday, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of National Grid plc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control overfinancial reporting ( as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting or causedsuch internal control overfinancial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regardingreliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financialstatements for external purposesin accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting;and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves managementor other employees who have asignificant role in the company’sinternal control over financialreporting.   June 19, 2007 /s/ Steve Holliday
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1962

SHAWNTA D. ROYSTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General; MARY KEARNEY, Postmaster; CARL W. 

STARLIPER, Supervisor,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, former Attorney General; STEPHEN 

SCHENNING, Acting U.S. Attorney; MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Former Postmaster 

General,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-02495-GLR)

Submitted: January 15, 2021 Decided: January 26, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Shawnta D. Royster, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Shawnta D. Royster appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment 

discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Royster v. 

DeJoy, No. 1:17-cv-02495-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2020). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 302-17.52 When should I file an amended “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” under the one-year process? You should submit an amended “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” to your agency under the one-year process whenever the information on it changes, and you should continue to amend it until you have received the last W-2 from your agency in connection with a specific relocation. In particular, you should file an amended version of this statement whenever: ( a ) Your filing status changes;
( b ) Your income changes enough that your income, including WTA and RITA, might put you into a different tax bracket; or
( c ) You have taxable relocation expenses in a second or third calendar year.
Note to § 302-17.52 :
Your agency will not be able to use your original or amended “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” if you file it after the cut-off date established by your agency in accordance with § 302-17.54(b).
§ 302-17.12 How are taxes on extended TDY benefits and taxes on relocation allowances related? ( a ) Taxes on extended TDY benefits are computed using exactly the same processes described in this Part for the WTA and RITA except that: ( 1 ) The tax process for extended TDY benefits uses the term “withholding tax allowance” (WTA) in exactly the same fashion as the process for taxes on relocation allowances; however, in place of the term “relocation income tax allowance,” the tax process for extended TDY benefits uses the term “extended TDY tax reimbursement allowance” (ETTRA); and
( 2 ) All benefits are taxable under extended TDY, so the sections of this Part that discuss which benefits are taxable and which are not have no relevance to ETTRA.
( b ) See part 301-11, subpart F of this title for additional information about taxes on extended TDY benefits.
[FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014. Redesignated at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
#### § 302-10.3 What is the maximum amount my agency may authorize me to receive for transporting a mobile home?

The maximum amount your agency may authorize you to receive for transporting a mobile home shall not exceed the cost of transporting 18,000 pounds of HHG and 90 days of temporary storage.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2016

No. 04-16-00186-CV

COTTER & SONS, INC.; James F. Cotter; Alamo Towers-Cotter, LLC; Cotter 11211 Katy 

Freeway Building, LP; Cotter 7447 Harwin Building, LP; Cotter Equities LLC; Cotter Harwin 

Equities LLC; Cotter Katy Equities LLC; Cotter Katy Freeway Building, LP; Et al.,

Appellants

v.

BJ CORPORATION d/b/a National Building Service,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-09427

Honorable Gloria Saldana, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file their reply brief is GRANTED. 

Appellants’ reply brief is due January 26, 2017. No further extensions will be granted. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
***Exhibit 32.2***

* *

***CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

* *

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledgeand belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter endedJune 30, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q/A”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Paul Theodore Owens                                  |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| *Paul  Theodore Owens*                                   |
| *Vice  President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer* |
|                                                     |
| *June  14, 2004*                                         |

 

1

----
322P15-3

#### State v. Raymond Alan Griffin

1. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

1. Dismissed

2. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

2. Dismissed

*3.*Defs *Pro Se Petition*for *Writ of Mandamus*

3. Dismissed
# Comments on: 18-1937: GRAVELLE v. KABA ILCO CORPORATION [OPINION], Nonprecedential
§ 962.7 Hearing location. An oral hearing under this part shall be held ( a ) In the judicial district of the United States in which the Respondent resides or transacts business; or
( b ) In the judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement upon which the allegation of liability under 31 U.S.C. 3802 was made, presented, or submitted; or
( c ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the Respondent and the Presiding Officer.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 858 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 858

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to extend coverage under 
  the whistleblower protection provisions of the District of Columbia 
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to personnel of the courts of 
                       the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1999

Mr. Davis of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Norton, 
and Mrs. Morella) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 11, District of Columbia Code, to extend coverage under 
  the whistleblower protection provisions of the District of Columbia 
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to personnel of the courts of 
                       the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Court Employees 
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR PERSONNEL OF THE COURTS OF THE 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11, District 
of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:
``Sec. 11-1733. Whistleblower protection for court personnel
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 1503 of the 
District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (DC 
Code, sec. 1-616.3) shall apply to court personnel, except that court 
personnel may institute a civil action pursuant to subsection (c) of 
such section in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subchapter II of 
chapter 17 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new item:

``11-1733. Whistleblower protection for court personnel.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect as if included 
in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
                                 <all>
```
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-317-000]

Take notice that on June 15, 2000, Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, LLC (MCGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, proposed to be effective July 15, 2000.

MCGP states that the purpose of this filing is to revise MCGP's Original Volume No. 1 FERC Gas Tariff to remove the maximum price cap or short-term capacity release transactions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16131  Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          $ 1,298
<SECURITIES>                     26,441
<RECEIVABLES>                    39,319
<ALLOWANCES>                     (1,274)
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                               40
<DEPRECIATION>                      (36)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   66,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               102
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                       66,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     66,121
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  5,260
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    139
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,781
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               4,781
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                          (357)
<NET-INCOME>                      4,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.00
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant toSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certifythat to the undersigned’s knowledge:

1.                 theCompany’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (“10-Q”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               the informationcontained in the Company’s 10-Q being filed fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| Date: August 9, 2007 |   | /s/ Kenneth J. Galaznik          |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Kenneth J. Galaznik                   |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toAmerican Science & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained byAmerican Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
### The Honorable Michael James Davis, United States District 1 

### Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1027

___________ Julius Addison, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Joseph M. Brooks, Warden, F.C.I.,* Sandstone, Minnesota, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 17, 1996 Filed: November 1, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Ju lius Addison appeals the district court's dismissal of his 2 8 1 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without an evidentiary hearing. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district cour t correc tlydismissed Addison's petition for the reasons stated in th e magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We decline to grant Addison's request for appellate counsel.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-75,987-04
EX P ARTE REVAT RENE VARA, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1061075-A IN THE 208TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Ap p l i cant was convicted of driving while intox icated and sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Vara v. State , No. 01-07-00291- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec
. 18, 2008) (not designated f

or publication). Applicant contends that his trial c o u n s e l r e n d ere d ineffe ctive assistance
. The trial court made finding s of fac t, conclude d that trial counsel was ineffe ctive, and rec ommended that we g rant relief
.2

Relief is grante d. The judgme nt in cause number 1061075 i n the 208th District Court of Har ris County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to answe r the char g es in t h e indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to th e T e xa s D ep a r tm e nt o f Cr iminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: 1/13/16 Do not publish
# Comments on: 20-1131: MINNS v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential
#### § 301-71.300 What is the policy governing the use of travel advances?

You should minimize the use of cash travel advances. However, you should not require an employee to pay travel expenses using personal funds unless the employee has elected not to use alternative resources provided by the Government, such as a Government contractor-issued charge card.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4204

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 2, 1994

Received

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 711 Washington

Street in Boston, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Jean Mayer

Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 711 Washington

5 Street in Boston, Massachusetts, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research

7 Center on Aging’’.
2

•HR 4204 RDS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Re6 search Center on Aging’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
# Comments on: 2020-1540: Baggage Airline Guest Services v. Roadie, Inc.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4044

_____________________________
L EON J. N ICELY , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. July 9, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.

This c ourt issued an order on May 2, 201 8 , directing Appellant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him in light of his having instituted numerous repetitive, meritles s proceedings in this c ourt. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 19 99). We have reviewed Appellant’ s response and determined it does not provide a legal basis to justify withholding imposition of sanctions.

Appellant is hereby prohibited from filing any pro se filings in this court challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in Duval County case number 16

- 1996

- CF

- 8172 . The Clerk of this
court is directed to not accept any filings in this case unless they are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.2 Additionally, we find this appeal is a frivolous proceeding brought before this court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). We direct the clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution or facility within the Florida Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures pursuant to department rules.

O STERHAUS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Leon J. Nicely, Jr., pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.