alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Kenneth P. Hamik, President and CFO, of LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Registrant;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
Quarterly Report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the Registrant and I have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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
          Quarterly Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          My evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     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 function);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
          internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
          and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; 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.

Dated: November 14, 2006.  Signature:/s/Kenneth P. Hamik
                                     Kenneth P. Hamik
                                     President and CEO
No. 11-9730.

#### Moore *v.*Galaza, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"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":"20-1473: TAYLOR 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=\"YCTZ1MRbto\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-25-2020-20-1473-taylor-v-us-opinion-20-1473-opinion-8-25-2020_1642418\/\">20-1473: TAYLOR v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-25-2020-20-1473-taylor-v-us-opinion-20-1473-opinion-8-25-2020_1642418\/embed\/#?secret=YCTZ1MRbto\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1473: TAYLOR v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YCTZ1MRbto\" 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: TAYLOR v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1473 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16835]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 00-15701) published on pages 
38831 and 38832 of the issue for Thursday, June 22, 2000.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago heading, the entry for 
Michael Robert Reese, Appleton, Wisconsin, is revised to read as 
follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Michael Robert Reese, Appleton, Wisconsin; to acquire voting 
shares of Fox River Valley Bancorp, Inc., Appleton, Wisconsin, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Business Bank of Fox 
River Valley, Appleton, Wisconsin.
    Comments on this application must be received by July 6, 2000.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-16835 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
FORM 28. Confidential Mediation Survey for Parties Form 28 (p. 1) 

March 2021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

CONFIDENTIAL MEDIATION SURVEY FOR PARTIES

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

Attorney for:

1. Was a settlement agreement reached through mediation?

Yes No

2. When did you decide to participate in mediation?

When completing the Docketing Statement.

After filing a brief.

After all briefing had been completed but before oral argument.

After oral argument.

3. Did your client attend any of the mediation sessions?

Yes No

4. Did the mediator have expertise in the legal issues in this case?

Yes No

5. What impact did this have on the mediation?

6. Do you consider the mediation to have been successful?

Yes No

Why? 
FORM 28. Confidential Mediation Survey for Parties Form 28 (p. 2) 

March 2021

7. Please provide a candid evaluation of the mediator assigned to this case.

8. Was the Circuit Mediation Office responsive?

Yes No

9. Will you recommend the mediation program to others?

Yes No

10.Will you participate in the mediation program again?

Yes No

11.Comments/suggestions please:

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name: 

Thank you for your participation in the program. Please send the completed form to

Circuit Mediation Administrator

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, NW

Washington, DC 20439
¿Buscas trabajo? 

Ahora puedes verificar tu elegibilidad laboral antes de que tu próximo empleador lo 

haga. Self Check te da la seguridad de saber que tus datos están en orden.

Es rápido, fácil y totalmente gratis.

VISITA USCIS.GOV/SELFCHECK. UN SERVICIO DE 

Clasificados 

Solicitud de empleo 

Confianza
1 July	31,	2015

Docket	Operations,	M

- 30

U.S. Department	of	Transportation (DOT) 1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE

Room	W12

- 140,	West	Building	Ground	Floor Washington,	D.C.	20590

- 0001

RE: Amendment	to	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	Exemption	No.	12205.

Dear	Sir or	Madam :

StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC	was	issued	an	exemption	under	Section	333	of	the	“FAA

Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012”	numbered 12205 for	the	purposes to conduct	aerial	photography	and	videography. StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC,	hereby requests	an	amendment	to our FAA Exemption	No. 12205 ,	Docket	No.	FAA

- 2015

- 1873 to expand	the	proposed	operations	that	were	originally	requested.	The proposed	operations	will be	operated	in	full	compliance	with	the	conditions	set

forth	within E xemption No.	12205

.

StraightEdge	Aero ,	LL C requested	aerial	photography	and	videography	services	to homeowners,	realtors,	builders,	contractors,	and/or	inspectors	for	use	in,	but	not limited	to,	real	estate	marketing	and	safer	inspections	of	home	and	building exteriors.	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	res pectfully	requests	to	expand	our	aerial photography	and	videography	service	for	the	follow	uses:

1. Aerial	inspections,	mapping,	monitoring,	and	security	of	infrastructure	and operations	in	the	energy	industry.

a. See	Exemption	No.	11446 and	11538

2. Using	imagery	and	analyt ics	in	underwriting,	re

- underwriting,	catastrophe response,	roof	inspection,	and	claim	resolutions	operations	in	the	insurance industry.

a. See	Exemption	No.	11188

3. Infrastructure	(bridge)	inspections

a. See	Exemption	No.	11171

4. Conduct	precision	agriculture	operations

a. See	Exemption	No.	12114 and	11172A

5. Aerial	surveys	for	oil,	power	and	ga s	industries

a. See	Exemption	No. 11508

As	indicated	above,	there	is	good cause	for	not	publishing	a	summary	of	the	petition in	the	Federal	Register	because	the	requested	exemptions	would	not	set	precedent, and	any	delay	in	acting	on	this	petition	would	be	detrimental	to	the	petitioner.

There	has been	no	chance	in	the conditions and	re asons	relative	to	public	intere st and	safety	that	were	the basis	for	granting	the	original	exemption.2 Thank	you	for	your	time	and	consideration with	our	request.	Feel	free	to	contact	us with	any	additional	questions.

Sincerely,

/s/	Nicholas	Flom

____________________________________

Nicholas	Flom Managing Partner

, StraightEdge	Aero ,	LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 AND 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,342,849                  24,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,380                   2,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,828,950                 102,589
<PP&E>                                          69,555                  24,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,786                   9,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,913,074                 390,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          605,401               2,273,578
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    10,484,681               3,268,800
<OTHER-SE>                                    (96,952)                (27,575)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,913,074                 390,426
<SALES>                                         38,166                 112,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,166                 112,672
<CGS>                                          782,937                 661,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  782,937                 661,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,106,198               1,954,409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,910                 137,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,954,879)             (2,641,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,955,679)             (2,642,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,955,679)             (2,642,296)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.84)                  (2.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.84)                  (2.19)
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-9538.

#### Castellar, aka Ramos *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.8001 FCC Registration Number (FRN). ( a ) The FCC Registration Number (FRN) is a 10-digit unique identifying number that is assigned to entities doing business with the Commission.
( b ) The FRN is obtained through the Commission Registration System (CORES) over the Internet at the CORES link at *www.fcc.gov* or by filing FCC Form 160.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.927 Limitations on grants. ( a ) A grant of certification is valid only when the device is labeled in accordance with § 2.925 and remains effective until set aside, revoked or withdrawn, rescinded, surrendered, or a termination date is otherwise established by the Commission.
( b ) A grant of certification recognizes the determination that the equipment has been shown to be capable of compliance with the applicable technical standards if no unauthorized change is made in the equipment and if the equipment is properly maintained and operated. The issuance of a grant of equipment certification shall not be construed as a finding with respect to matters not encompassed by the Commission's rules, especially with respect to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 2512.
( c ) No person shall, in any advertising matter, brochure, etc., use or make reference to an equipment authorization in a deceptive or misleading manner or convey the impression that such certification reflects more than a Commission-authorized determination that the device or product has been shown to be capable of compliance with the applicable technical standards of the Commission's rules.
[80 FR 33441, June 12, 2015, as amended at 82 FR 50826, Nov. 2, 2017]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4406

To require that a monthly statement of costs charged against the Official

Mail Allowance for persons entitled to use the congressional frank be

kept and made available to the public, and to reduce the amount of

that allowance for any Member of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1994

Mr. GOODLATTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To require that a monthly statement of costs charged against

the Official Mail Allowance for persons entitled to use

the congressional frank be kept and made available to

the public, and to reduce the amount of that allowance

for any Member of the House of Representatives.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

4 Section 311 of the Legislative Appropriations Act,

5 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)(3)—
2

•HR 4406 IH

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘shall in2 clude’’; and

3 (B) by striking ‘‘frank.’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘frank, and (B) shall make available to the

5 public a monthly statement (based solely on

6 data provided for that purpose by such Com7 mittee) of costs charged against the Official

8 Mail Allowance for each person entitled to use

9 the congressional frank.’’; and

10 (2) in subsection (e)(2)(B)(i) by striking ‘‘3’’

11 and inserting ‘‘1.5’’.

12 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

13 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

14 apply with respect to sessions of Congress beginning after

15 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
1 

### King, Melanie

From: Turner, Thomas E (DEC) <tom.turner@alaska.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:19 PM

To: King, Melanie; Smith, Rebecca T (DEC)

Cc: Igoe, Sheila

Subject: RE: question regarding request to amend subpart IIII

Melanie,

Thank you !

We reviewed 40 CFR 60.4216 yesterday. Both 60.4216(a) and 60.4216(e) do have date limited language in

them, therefore, Technical staff concur with your assertion that EPA shouldn’t need to modify 60.4216(a) and (e)

. We

have summarized the issue and sent e

‐ mail to upper management.

Unless otherwise advised, we should be able to proceed. In addition, is EPA okay with an e

‐ mail or do you require

a new letter indicating our concurrence?

Please let us know if you have questions or comments.

Thanks again for your quick response after the 111 (d). Your time and consideration is greatly appreciated.

Best Regards, Tom

9907) 269

‐ 8123

From: King, Melanie [mailto:King.Melanie@epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:51 AM

To: Turner, Thomas E (DEC); Smith, Rebecca T (DEC)

Cc: Igoe, Sheila

Subject: question regarding request to amend subpart IIII

Hi Tom and Rebecca,

Question regarding the attached letter

– it asks that EPA revise 60.4216(a)

‐ (f) to extend it to additional remote areas

that are accessible by the FAHS. In looking at 60.4216(a) and (e), it seems to be that the time period for which those

provisions would be invoked has passed. Is there any reason why those provisions need to be modified at this time, or

can the modifications for 60.4216 focus on (b)

‐ (d) and (f)?

Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243

‐ 01

RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541

‐ 2469

Fax: (919) 541

‐ 5450

king.melanie@epa.gov
46260.

#### SIGNA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. FAYETTE COUNTY et al.

(375 SE2d 839)

Weltner, Justice.

Signa Development Corporation wished to develop its property, located in unincorporated Fayette County. Believing the county land use ordinances were too restrictive, Signa persuaded the City of Fayetteville to annex its property, and to grant to it the right to build on this property under a comprehensive development plan approved by the city. In 1988, before construction had begun on Signa’s property, the General Assembly, acting under the authority of OCGA § 36-35-2 (a), changed the city limit of Fayetteville to exclude Signa’s property. See Ga. L. 1988, pp. 4953-4960. The effect of this action by the General Assembly was to vitiate any authority of the city to permit devel*12opment of Signa’s property. Signa filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking to have the 1988 Act held unconstitutional and void. The trial court denied relief.

Decided February 2, 1989

Reconsideration denied March 2, 1989.

1. OCGA § 36-35-2 (a) provides:

> No municipal corporation shall be incorporated, dissolved, merged, or consolidated with any other municipal corporation, or have its municipal boundaries changed except by local Act of the General Assembly or such methods as may be approved by general law.

2. In *Troup County Electric Membership Corp. v. Ga. Power Co.,*229 Ga. 348, 352 (4) (191 SE2d 33) (1972), we held: “[Municipalities are creatures of the legislature, and their existence may be established, altered, amended, enlarged or diminished, or utterly abolished by the legislature.” See also *City of Mountain View v. Clayton County,*242 Ga. 163, 166 (249 SE2d 541) (1978), where this language was quoted with approval.

Ga. L. 1988, pp. 4953-4960 is not unconstitutional for any of the reasons asserted by Signa.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.*

Smith, Justice,

dissenting.

Despite active opposition to the annexation of Signa’s 908 acres and five other tracts of land totaling 835 acres, the City of Fayetteville annexed the approximately 1700 acres under the “100% method,” OCGA §§ 36-36-1 and 36-36-2, on November 2, 1987.

Signa was issued a permit in January 1988 to begin the first phase of its development. Both city and county citizens continued to voice opposition to the annexation, and they requested their delegation to the General Assembly to introduce legislation to de-annex the property.

Although approximately 1700 acres were annexed, the bill which ultimately de-annexed the property only de-annexed Signa’s 908 acres. The other approximately 835 were left untouched.

The majority opinion is correct to a point, however; an act can be unconstitutional even though it is passed as a local act. There is nothing sacrosanct about legislation dealing with municipalities. Legislation can be, as it is here, unconstitutional because it denies one party, Signa, equal protection.

*13
      *Lipshutz, Greenblatt & King, Randall M. Lipshutz, Edward R. Greenblatt,*for appellant.

*David P. Winkle, William R. McNally, M. Van Stephens II, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General,*for appellees.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 434

To repeal the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to designate the building located at

1515 Sam Houston Street in Liberty, Texas, as the ‘M.P. Daniel and

Thomas F. Calhoon, Senior, Post Office Building’ ’’, approved May 17,

1990.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. WILSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To repeal the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to designate the building

located at 1515 Sam Houston Street in Liberty, Texas,

as the ‘M.P. Daniel and Thomas F. Calhoon, Senior,

Post Office Building’ ’’, approved May 17, 1990.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF BUILDING DESIGNATION.

4 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to designate the building

5 located at 1515 Sam Houston Street in Liberty, Texas,

6 as the ‘M.P. Daniel and Thomas F. Calhoon, Senior, Post

7 Office Building’ ’’, approved May 17, 1990, is repealed.

Æ