alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Joseph C. Christenson, certify that:

 

1) I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of PPT Vision,Inc.

 

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  March 17,2005

 
|   | /s/ Joseph C. Christenson        |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph C. Christenson, President |

 

----
#### William A. Miles, Appellant, v. Goodwillie-Wyman Company, Respondents

—Order modi-

fied by striking out allowance of fifty dollars, and as modified affirmed, without cost?. Opinion by

Brady, J.
EXHIBIT 24.1
                      POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Central  and  South  West Corporation  (the  "Corporation"),
hereby makes, constitutes and appoints Glenn D. Rosilier and
Wendy  G.  Hargus and each of them severally, his  true  and
lawful  attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with  full  power
and  authority  (acting  alone and without  the  others)  to
execute in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any
and  all capacities, the Corporation's Annual Report on Form
10-K  for  1995  and any and all amendments thereto,  to  be
filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and  any other documents and instruments incidental thereto,
and  to  file  the same, with all exhibits thereto  and  all
documents  in connection therewith, with the Securities  and
Exchange  Commission, hereby granting to such  attorneys-in-
fact, and agents, and each of them, full power and authority
of  substitution  and revocation in the  premises  and  full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing  requisite and necessary to be done in and  about  the
premises,  as  fully  for all intents and  purposes  as  the
undersigned might or could do in person and hereby ratifying
and  confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact and  agents,
or any of them, may do or cause to be done by virtue of this
Power of Attorney.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto executed this Power  of
Attorney this 18th day of January, 1996.


                              E. R. Brooks
                              President & Chief Executive Officer






Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of  January,
1996.

                              Frederic L. Frawley
                              Notary Public

My Commission Expires:
December 3, 1998
#### John Tufts, Appellant, v. Holmes C. Lucas, Respondent.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered in the County Court of Ontario county, coBts to abide event. Opinion by

Haight, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 10, 1995 (125), Para 125.18 Subpoena]
[Page 1498]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.125.18  subpoena

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, laid before the House a 
communication, which was read as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,

                                          Office of the Clerk,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you pursuant to Rule L 
     (50) of the Rules of the House I have been served with a 
     subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia.
       The General Counsel has determined that compliance with the 
     subpoena is not inconsistent with the privileges and 
     precedents of the House.
       With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robin H. Carle,
                                                            Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6118

JAMES PRICE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

GAYLEN SANDERS, in official and private capacity; SOUTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, for declatory judgment 

and injunctive relief; FREDERICK PAUER; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:07-cv-03924-CMC-PJG) 

Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 20, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Price, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

James Price appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint in part and 

granting summary judgment to the defendants in part. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

 Price argues the district court erred by dismissing 

the case against John and Jane Doe without first ordering the 

defendants to identify them. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m) requires dismissal if the “defendant is not served within 

120 days after a complaint is filed,” unless the court grants an 

extension for good cause. Price did not serve the summons and 

amended complaint upon the unknown defendants within 120 days 

after filing the amended complaint or move the district court to 

extend the 120-day period. Consequently, the district court 

properly dismissed John and Jane Doe from the suit. 

 Price alleges, for the first time on appeal, that the 

overcrowded living conditions are dangerous because the rooms 

are designed for only a single occupant. This court generally 

declines to address claims raised for the first time on appeal, 

unless such a refusal would result in a fundamental miscarriage 

of justice. United States Dep’t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining 

Co., 452 F.3d 275, 283 (4th Cir. 2006). Price has not advanced 

any reason why he did not present this argument below, nor has 

he argued that any exceptional circumstances justify departing 

2 
3 

from the general rule. Based upon our review of the record, 

there are no exceptional circumstances warranting such a 

departure. 

 Finally, Price argues that the district court erred by 

deciding whether he could prove he was assaulted and by relying 

on defendants’ evidence where there were material factual issues 

in dispute. Price misinterprets the district court opinion, 

because the district court did not make any finding on whether 

Price could prove the assault, nor did it rely on defendants’ 

evidence to resolve a material factual issue. Thus, these 

issues are without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0665 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Sally N. Wetzel 

Address: 

1210 N. Buckeye Road 

Muncie, IN, 47304 

Organization: NAMI 

General Comment 

On behalf of NAMI of Muncie, Indiana, I am writing to submit comments on the Interim Final 

Rules under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act 

of 2008 and in doing so NAMI of Muncie, Indiana endorses the separate comments submitted by 

the Parity Implementation Coalition and the National Alliance on Mental Illness 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 01, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae4c43 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
PUBLIC LAW 112–219—DEC. 28, 2012 126 STAT. 1595 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3477: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

July 23, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–219 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 133 Hare 

Road in Crosby, Texas, as the Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office 

Building. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ARMY FIRST SERGEANT DAVID MCNERNEY POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 133 Hare Road in Crosby, Texas, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 28, 2012. 

Dec. 28, 2012 

[H.R. 3477] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAWS
Exhibit 99



                                      March 29, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

                  Re:  Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          In connection with the audit of the consolidated financial
statements of FirstEnergy Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and for
the year then ended, Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) has issued its report dated
March 18, 2002. Andersen's report is included in FirstEnergy's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

          FirstEnergy has received the following representations from
Andersen with respect to their audit:

       o  The FirstEnergy audit was subject to Andersen's quality control
          system for their U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
          reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
          compliance with professional standards.

       o  There was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the
          FirstEnergy audit.

       o  There was appropriate availability of national office consultation for
          the FirstEnergy audit.

       o  There was appropriate availability of personnel at foreign
          affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the
          FirstEnergy audit.

                                              Sincerely,


                                           /s/Harvey L. Wagner
                                    ----------------------------------
                                             Harvey L. Wagner
                                       Vice President and Controller
Jake Hayden Thomas

23

-96 Brighton Ct Lanark, IL 61046 815

-238

-3413 Thomjake1993@yahoo.com

Dear Federal Aviation Administration,
I am writing you in regards to CFR 14 61.160 Restricted Airline Transport Pilot (RATP) qualifications. I am a graduate from the University of Dubuque with a Bachelors Degree of Science in Flight Operations. I unfortunately only qualify for the Associate degree, 250 hour reduction because I am 6 credits short on the approved coursework. I obtained my private pilot’s license pre college thinking that I was getting a jump start on my career, when in reality I’m just sitting alongside fellow pilots 250 hours behind me. I completed my instrument, commercial and multiengine add on at the University of Dubuque under part 141 rules . I then completed my flight instructor initial and instrument under 61 rules in my own personal aircraft . The approved coursework wasn’t released to the students until my final semester of college so there was no room for adjustment.
I’m writing to you for an exception to the rule. I graduated from the University of Dubuque in just 3 years and hold a bachelors degree in flight operati ons. I have a 100% first time pass rate along with a perfect safety record. Ever since the RATP ruling was made I have been planning my future and banking on qualifying for the 500 hour reduction. I made sure that I put in my very most effort to graduate early to start my career as an airline pilot. I was very disappointed when the approved coursework was p ublished to find out I will fall 6 credits short.
If you cannot grant me any exception can I please get an explanation on why only certain classes of the degree count toward the RATP. I have included the classes I have completed to be referenced against t he University of Dubuque’s approved coursework:

AVI 145 1 FLI 334 2 AVI 231 4 FLI 435 2 AVI 232 3 PHY 151 4 AVI 233 3 AVI 332 3 Not approved: AVI 346 3 AVI 131 (TRANSFERRED) 2 AVI 349 3 FLI 131 (TRANFERED) 3 AVI 401 3 AVI 495 3 AVI 430 2 AV I 496 3 AVI 431 3 AVI 434 3 AVI 435 2 AVI 447 3 ESC 214 3 FLI 132 2 FLI 231 3 FLI 232 2Of the approved credits, it adds up to a total of 54. If you were to total in the transferred credits and the

coursework not included it amounts to 65.

Thank you for your time and consideration!
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : SOON W HA C HEY; DAVID C HEY, De

btors, SOON W HA C HEY; DAVID C HEY, Appe lla

nts, v. AM R ANE C OHEN; e t a l., Appe lle e s. No. 10-60029 B AP No. 09-1254 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Pa ppa s, M onta l i, a

nd B randt, B a

nkruptc y Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Soon Wha

C he y and he r son, Da

vid C h e y , a

ppe a l pro se from the 

# FIL ED FEB 3 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B ankruptc y

Appe l late Pane l ’ s (“ B AP” ) judgm e nt a ffirm i ng the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde r granting W e lls Fa

rgo B ank, N.A.’ s m otion for re l ie f from an a utom at ic sta

y with re spe c t to c e rta in re a l prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d). W e re vie w de novo B AP de c isions, a nd a p ply the sam e sta

n da rd of re vie w tha

t the B AP a

pplie d to the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s ruling. Boy ajian v . N e w Falls C orp. (In re

Boy ajian) , 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th C i r. 2009). W e a ffirm . The ba nkruptc y c o urt did not a

b use its disc re tion by

granting re lie f from

the a utom at ic ba

nkruptc y sta y to W e lls Fa

rgo be c a use the C he y s no longe r ha d a le ga l or e quita ble inte re st in thesubje c t prope rty . Se e 11 U.S.C . § 362(d)(1) (a llowing ba nkruptc y c ourt to gra

nt re lie f from

the sta y for c a use ); C hriste nse n v . Tucson Estate s, Inc . (In reTucson Estate s, Inc .) , 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th C ir. 1990) (c a u se for lifting the

sta y m ay e xist whe re a

sta te c o urt proc e e ding involving the sam e issue s is pe nding). The C he y s’ re que s ts for judic ia l notic e , se t forth in the ir ope n ing brie f, are de nie d. All pe nding m otions a

re de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 0 - 6 0 0 2 9 2
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0345.txt

From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:47 PM To: parise.tanya@ecrweb.com -----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:47PM ----- To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rick Counihan <RCounihan@enernoc.com>, Don DiCristofaro <DDiCristofaro@enernoc.com> From: Ken Schisler <kschisler@enernoc.com> Date: 01/08/2010 11:11AM Subject: Regions governed by NERC standards

Melanie,

See the NERC map below depicting the regional reliability entities that NERC designates to administer the NERC standards on a regional level. Texas is included under the NERC jurisdiction, as is most of Canada and a portion of Mexico. The answer to the open question from my last email is that NERC reliability standards apply to almost all of North American Continent, with the exception of Alaska, Northern Canada, and most of Mexico. I don’t know who administers reliability standards in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or other U.S. Territories or Possessions.

Not to complicate things, but these regional reliability entities are not the same as the RTO/ISOs or Balancing Authorities or Transmission Operators. They are intentionally independent of the RTO/ISOs, Balancing Authorities and Transmission Operators. These regional reliability entities are part of the NERC organization. The EPACT 2005 created a national requirement for an Electric Reliability Organization, to be regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC has designated NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization recognized in federal law, and NERC has established this regional reliability organizations to administer NERC standards on a regional basis. Both NERC and the regional reliability organizations predated EPACT 2005. EPACT 2005 codified the responsibilities of NERC in federal law and made compliance with NERC standards mandatory pursuant to federal law.

Kenneth D. Schisler - Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs EnerNOC, Inc. | 101 Federal Street, Suite 1100 | Boston, MA 02110 o: 410.745.8104 | m: 410.725.1462 kschisler@enernoc.com | www.enernoc.com EnerNOC - get more from energy This email and any information disclosed in connection herewith, whether written or oral, is the property of EnerNOC, Inc. and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distributing or copying any information contained in this email to anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0345.txt2/19/2010 12:50:38 PM
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2288 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2288

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend for 2 
 years the deadline by which States are required to have in effect an 
 automated data processing and information retrieval system for use in 
    the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1995

Mr. Shaw (for himself, Mr. Ford, Mr. Camp, Mr. McCrery, Mrs. Kennelly, 
  Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Nussle, Ms. Dunn of Washington, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Stark) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend for 2 
 years the deadline by which States are required to have in effect an 
 automated data processing and information retrieval system for use in 
    the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTOMATION DEADLINE.

    (a) In General.--Section 454(24) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 654(24)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``1997''.
    (b) Technical Amendments Related to the Repeal of Federal 
Funding.--Section 452 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended in each of 
subsections (d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (e), by striking 
``455(a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``454(16)''.
                                 <all>
```