alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**MOSSIMO, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman andCo-Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K of Mossimo, Inc.;

2.                 Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 report.

3.                 Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b)          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrols over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| /s/ MOSSIMO GIANNULLI                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mossimo  Giannulli                         |
| *Chairman and  Co-Chief Executive Officer* |
| April 27, 2005                             |

 

----
#### § 17.54 Rated lamp voltage.

To insure the necessary lumen output by obstruction lights, the rated voltage of incandescent lamps used shall correspond to be within 3 percent higher than the voltage across the lamp socket during the normal hours of operation.

[42 FR 54826, Oct. 11, 1977]
§ 102-79.25 May Federal agencies allot space in Federal buildings for the provision of child care services? Yes, in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 590, Federal agencies can allot space in Federal buildings to individuals or entities who will provide child care services to Federal employees if such— ( a ) Space is available;
( b ) Agency determines that such space will be used to provide child care services to children of whom at least 50 percent have one parent or guardian who is a Federal Government employee; and
( c ) Agency determines that such individual or entity will give priority for available child care services in such space to Federal employees.
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1765

____________

MARK ALLEN GERALDS,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[February 28, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Mark Allen Geralds’ appeal of the circuit court’s order 

denying Geralds’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Geralds’ motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s 

decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in 

Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 

(2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. 

denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), Geralds responded to this Court’s order to show 

cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
- 2 -

After reviewing Geralds’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the 

State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Geralds is not entitled to relief. 

Geralds was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for 

death. Geralds v. State, 674 So. 2d 96, 98 (Fla. 1996). Geralds’ sentence of death 

became final in 1996. Geralds v. Florida, 519 U.S. 891 (1996). Thus, Hurst does 

not apply retroactively to Geralds’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 

217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Geralds’ motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Geralds, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Bay County, 

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge - Case No. 031989CF000495XXAXMX

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida,

for Appellant
- 3 -

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee
082A14

#### State v. Sethy Tony Seam

Special Order
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1519: BEBERMAN v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LlT3NxbOen\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-12-2018-18-1519-beberman-v-us-opinion-18-1519-opinion-10-12-2018\/\">18-1519: BEBERMAN v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-12-2018-18-1519-beberman-v-us-opinion-18-1519-opinion-10-12-2018\/embed\/#?secret=LlT3NxbOen\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1519: BEBERMAN v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"LlT3NxbOen\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: BEBERMAN v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1519 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 59119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24545]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. and 1 
p.m.-3:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting-Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

    Decisional Matter: Unblockable Drains (8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.)
    Briefing Matters: (Staff Presentations from 10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. and 
Commission Q&A from 1 p.m.-3:30 p.m.)
    (1) Testing & Certification/Components Parts Final Rule;
    (2) Representative--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
    (3) Federal Register Notice on HR2715 Questions.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24545 Filed 9-21-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
No. 11-146.

#### Moss *v.*Fairborn City Schools.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 101.817 Notification of station operation at temporary locations. ( a ) The licensee of stations authorized pursuant to § 101.813 must notify the Commission prior to each period of operation. This notification must include: ( 1 ) The call sign, manufacturer's name, type or model number, output power and specific location of the transmitter(s);
( 2 ) The maintenance location for the transmitter;
( 3 ) The location of the transmitting or receiving station with which it will communicate and the identity of the correspondent operating such facilities;
( 4 ) The exact frequency or frequencies to be used;
( 5 ) The public interest, convenience and necessity to be served by operation of the proposed installation;
( 6 ) The commencement and anticipated termination dates of operation from each location. In the event the actual termination date differs from the previous notification, written notice thereof promptly must be given to the Commission;
( 7 ) Where the notification contemplates initially a service that is to be rendered for a period longer than 90 days, the notification must contain a showing as to why application should not be made for regular authorization; and
( 8 ) A notification must include compliance with the provisions of § 101.813(c).
( b ) A copy of the notification must be kept with the station license.
[61 FR 26677, May 28, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 68984 Dec. 14, 1998]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS, INC., DBA 

CHICKEN OF THE SEA FROZEN FOODS, AKA 

EMPRESS INTERNATIONAL LTD., MAZZETTA 

COMPANY LLC, ORE-CAL CORPORATION, QUOC 

VIET SEAPRODUCTS PROCESSING TRADING 

AND IMPORT-EXPORT CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

VIETNAM ASSOCIATION OF SEAFOOD 

EXPORTERS AND PRODUCERS, BIM SEAFOOD, 

CADOVIMEX SEAFOOD IMPORT-EXPORT AND 

PROCESSING JOINT-STOCK COMPANY, 

CAFATEX FISHERY JOINT STOCK 

CORPORATION, CAMAU FROZEN SEAFOOD 

PROCESSING IMPORT EXPORT CORPORATION, 

CAMAU SEAFOOD PROCESSING AND SERVICE 

JOINT-STOCK CORPORATION, CAN THO IMPORT 

EXPORT FISHERY LIMITED COMPANY, COASTAL 

FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, C.P. 

VIETNAM CORPORATION, CUU LONG 

SEAPRODUCTS COMPANY, DANANG 

SEAPRODUCTS IMPORT EXPORT 

CORPORATION, HAI VIET CORPORATION, 

INVESTMENT COMMERCE FISHERIES 

CORPORATION, KIM ANH CO., LTD., MINH HAI 

EXPORT FROZEN SEAFOOD PROCESSING JOINTSTOCK COMPANY, MINH HAI JOINT-STOCK 

SEAFOODS PROCESSING COMPANY, NHA TRANG 

FISHERIES JOINT STOCK COMPANY, NHA 

TRANG SEAFOODS, PHU CUONG JOSTOCO 
SEAFOOD CORPORATION, SAO TA FOODS JOINT 

STOCK COMPANY, SOC TRANG SEAFOOD JOINT 

STOCK COMPANY, THUAN PHUOC SEAFOODS 

AND TRADING CORPORATION, THONG THUAN 

COMPANY LIMITED, VIET I-MEI FROZEN FOODS 

CO., LTD., VIETNAM CLEAN SEAFOOD 

CORPORATION, MINH PHU GROUP, UTXI 

AQUATIC PRODUCTS PROCESSING 

CORPORATION, PRODUCTS PROCESSING 

COMPANY, VIET HAI SEAFOOD CO., LTD., MINH 

HAI SEA PRODUCTS IMPORT EXPORT 

COMPANY,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES, AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE 

ACTION COMMITTEE,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2017-2523

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:14-cv-00249-CRK, 1:14-cv-00250-CRK, 

1:14-cv-00258-CRK, 1:14-cv-00276-CRK, Judge Claire R. 

Kelly.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT GOSSELINK, Trade Pacific, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by JONATHAN FREED. 

 KARA WESTERCAMP, Commercial Litigation Branch, 
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United 

States. Also represented by JEANNE DAVIDSON, PATRICIA 

M. MCCARTHY, JOSEPH H. HUNT; JAMES HENRY AHRENS,

II, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & 

Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC. 

 NATHANIEL RICKARD, Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP,

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Ad Hoc

Shrimp Trade Action Committee. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 November 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
§ 10.500 General requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 88 FR 86837 , Dec. 15, 2023.
WEA mobile device functionality is dependent on the capabilities of a Participating CMS Provider's delivery technologies. Mobile devices are required to perform the following functions: ( a ) Authentication of interactions with CMS Provider infrastructure.
( b ) Monitoring for Alert Messages.
( c ) Maintaining subscriber alert opt-out selections, if any.
( d ) Maintaining subscriber alert language preferences, if any.
( e ) Extraction of alert content in English or the subscriber's preferred language, if applicable.
( f ) Presentation of alert content to the device, consistent with subscriber opt-out selections. National Alerts must always be presented.
( g ) Detection and suppression of presentation of duplicate alerts.
( h ) Preservation of Alert Messages in a consumer-accessible format and location for at least 24 hours or until deleted by the subscriber.
[73 FR 43117, July 24, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 16808, Mar. 19, 2013; 83 FR 8623, Feb. 28, 2018; 86 FR 46790, Aug. 20, 2021]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-1374: KAMMUNKUN v. DEFENSE [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oZAUnZldxm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-19-1374-kammunkun-v-defense-opinion-19-1374-opinion-4-6-2020_1563927\/\">19-1374: KAMMUNKUN v. DEFENSE [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-19-1374-kammunkun-v-defense-opinion-19-1374-opinion-4-6-2020_1563927\/embed\/#?secret=oZAUnZldxm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-1374: KAMMUNKUN v. DEFENSE [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"oZAUnZldxm\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: KAMMUNKUN v. DEFENSE [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-1374 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Company's consolidated financial statements for the
fifty-two weeks ended March 30, 1999 included in this report on
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000     <F1>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          53,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  190,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,600
<INVENTORY>                                     77,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384,700
<PP&E>                                       1,420,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 659,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,591,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          282,600
<BONDS>                                          1,500
<COMMON>                                           400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     639,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,591,600
<SALES>                                      1,925,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,925,200
<CGS>                                        1,092,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,092,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only: as presented,
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per
share data.
</FN>


</TABLE>
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–430

AGREEING TO THE CONFERENCE REQUESTED BY THE SENATE ON H.R. 2990, QUALITY CARE FOR THE UNINSURED

ACT OF 1999

NOVEMBER 1, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 348]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 348, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the disagreement by the House on the

Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2990, the Quality Care for the

Uninsured Act of 1999, and the agreement by the House to the conference requested by the Senate thereon.

Æ