alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Thomas M. Kitchen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 15, 2006         /s/THOMAS M. KITCHEN   Thomas M. Kitchen   Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,284
<INVENTORY>                                     74,769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,257
<PP&E>                                       1,332,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                 423,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,647,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,630
<BONDS>                                      1,759,371
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                   (297,200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,647,275
<SALES>                                          5,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,364
<CGS>                                           30,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,520
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,401)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
-                      -                        -                          -  Flood Maps 
                        - Guidance & Reports
                        -  Guidance & Reports 
                        -  Technical Mapping Advisory Council                            -  Administrative Documents 
                          -  Annual Reports & Recommendations 
                          -  Member and Subcommittee Information 
                          -  Stakeholder Engagement Program 
                          -  Meeting Agendas & Notes 
                        -  Guidelines and Standards 
                        -  Notices to Congress 
                        -  Flood Data Viewers & Geospatial Data 
                        -  Change Your Flood Zone Designation 
                        -  Risk MAP 
                        -  Products and Tools 
                        -  Cooperating Technical Partners 

# Technical Mapping Advisory Council

                            - English 

The Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) is a federal advisory committee established to review and make recommendations to FEMA on matters related to the national flood mapping program authorized under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.

The national flood mapping program provides flood maps to inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards so communities may build safely and resiliently. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) established under the program help determine the cost of National Flood Insurance Program flood insurance which helps property owners financially protect themselves against flooding.

The TMAC reviews the national flood mapping activities authorized under the law and prepares recommendations for the FEMA Administrator. The TMAC also produces an annual report on the impacts of climate sciences and future conditions and how they may be incorporated into the mapping program. The TMAC is comprised of representatives from federal, state, local and private sector organizations as mandated in the Biggert Waters Reform Act of 2012 and governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements.

The TMAC holds public meetings throughout the year.  Public meeting notices and information are published in the Federal Register and can be searched with the keyword “TMAC.”

## Council Information

Administrative Documents

Member and Subcommittee Information

TMAC Fact Sheet

Meeting Agendas and Minutes

Annual Reports & Recommendations

Stakeholder Engagement Program

Last updated September 2, 2021

Return to top
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 43

Condemning the irregular interruption of the democratic political institutional

process in Haiti.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1999

Mr. GOSS (for himself, Mr. GILMAN and Mr. FOLEY) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning the irregular interruption of the democratic

political institutional process in Haiti.

Whereas in 1991 at Santiago, Chile, the Organization of

American States (OAS) approved Resolution 1080 to

deter irregular interruptions of the democratic political

institutional process within countries having democratically elected governments;

Whereas the OAS invoked Resolution 1080 (1991) and called

for a meeting of the foreign ministers in 1991 to determine appropriate actions in response to the coup d’etat

against Haiti’s elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide;

Whereas the legacy of fiat and abuse of the Duvalier dictatorship led the framers of the 1987 Haitian Constitution to

provide for clear separation of powers;
2

•HCON 43 IH

Whereas the 1987 Haitian Constitution permanently vests all

legislative authority in the National Assembly and does

not provide for rule by decree by the President;

Whereas on January 11, 1999, President Preval seized dictatorial powers by effectively dissolving Haiti’s parliament and announcing he will rule by decree; and

Whereas this irregular interruption of the democratic political

institutional process requires immediate international attention and action to bring about a return to democracy

in that country: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. RESOLUTION.

4 The Congress—

5 (1) condemns the irregular interruption of the

6 democratic political institutional process and consid7 ers that interruption to be a serious blow to democ8 racy in Haiti and a serious threat to democracy in

9 the Caribbean region and the hemisphere;

10 (2) calls on the Government of Haiti forthwith

11 to fully restore the legitimate exercise of power by

12 a democratically elected National Assembly and to

13 ensure full respect for internationally recognized

14 human rights;

15 (3) urges the Organization of American States

16 (OAS) to send a fact-finding mission headed by the

17 Secretary General to Haiti and, under Resolution
3

•HCON 43 IH

1 1080, to call a meeting of the foreign ministers of

2 the OAS member countries in order to consider joint

3 actions to bring about a return to democracy in that

4 country.

5 SEC. 2. TRANSMISSION OF COPIES.

6 The Clerk of the House shall transmit a copy of this

7 concurrent resolution to the President of the United

8 States with the request that the President further trans9 mit such copy to the Secretary General of the Organiza10 tion of American States.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          1,364,776
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,959,358
<ALLOWANCES>                     (20,130)
<INVENTORY>                     2,780,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                7,407,857
<PP&E>                          2,762,595
<DEPRECIATION>                   (505,990)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 11,280,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,375,792
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            4,470
<OTHER-SE>                       5,219,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     11,280,120
<SALES>                          16,763,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 16,763,050
<CGS>                            15,810,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    15,810,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,054,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  183,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,437,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,437,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.42)



</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2146

___________

Charles Pointer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri

Building Stars Advantage, *

* [Unpublished]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2004

Filed: December 14, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Pointer appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Eastern District of Missouri, granting summary judgment to defendant

Buildingstars/St. Louis, Inc. (Buildingstars) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action. Pointer

claimed Buildingstars denied him a business franchise because of his sex and race.

For reversal Pointer argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment

because he was not allowed time for discovery, Buildingstars failed to prove he
-2-

would be an unsuccessful franchisee, and Buildingstars violated franchise and other

law. 

After careful review, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th

Cir. 2004), we conclude for the following reasons that summary judgment was proper.

First, Pointer did not request additional discovery time or submit a Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(f) affidavit. Second, § 1981 does not apply to sex discrimination. See Runyon v.

McCreary, 427 U.S. 160, 167 (1976). Third, even if Pointer had the minimum

qualifications for a franchisee, he did not show that the franchise denial was

motivated by racial discrimination. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 671

(Fed. Cir. 2000). Finally, Pointer did not show a violation of law.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Case No. 8,294.

#### The LEVI ROWE.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 373; 20 Leg. Int. 229.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

June 29, 1863.

Prize — Violation op Blockade.

On further proofs, vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

This suit was brought to hearing in January term last ICase No. 8,293] upon the preparatory proofs theretofore taken therein, and on the ship’s papers and the documents captured with her at the time of her seizure as prize, no claimant having intervened in her defence. It was then considered by the court that the evidence presented against the prize, on the part of the libellants, was inadequate in law to authorize the condemnation prayed for. The court, being thereupon moved by them, made an order that they have one year from that time within which further evidence might be presented by them to the court ■“’as to the point or place of the capture, and also as to the purpose of the voyage, and such other or further proof as they may be able to produce.” The libellants, in pursuance of said order, took, before one of the prize commissioners of this court, on the 10th ■day of June instant, the deposition of Samuel B. Hoppin, an assistant surgeon in the United States navy. He testifies that he was on board of the United States gunboat Mount Vernon, being attached to her, about the 29th of November, 1862, and witnessed, at that time, the capture of the above' prize by said gunboat; that the capture was made off New Topsail inlet, off the coast of North Carolina; that, when taken, the prize was heading or running directly into Old Topsail inlet, which then bore west about four miles; that New Topsail inlet, at the time of boarding and seizing the schooner, bore northwest by north, from three to three and one-half miles; that the prize was, when discovered, heading, with a fair wind, directly into New Topsail inlet; that, as soon as she saw the Mount Vernon, she went about, and headed out from the shore; and that, after the capture, he had several conversations with the supercargo of the vessel, captured in her, who told him that he was aware of the blockade, and had run the blockade of Charleston and Wilmington several times, and that the schooner intended to run the blockade into Wilmington. The further proofs so furnished in the case show conclusively the illicit character of the voyage upon which the schooner was engaged at the time of her capture. A decree of condemnation and forfeiture must, accordingly, be entered against the vessel and her cargo.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CLAY A. WALTERS,

Plaintiff, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, CASE NUMBER: C06-5384RBL

Commissioner of Social Security

 Administration,

 Defendants,

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

The Administrative Decision is AFFIRMED.

 May 2, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

 /s/ Pat LeFrois 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05384-RBL Document 21 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.4.1

AMENDMENT TO THE  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH TODD ZIMMERMAN

WHEREAS, Emergency Medical Services L.P. ("Company") and Todd Zimmerman ("Executive") entered into an Employment Agreement
("Agreement") on February 10, 2005, as amended; and

WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect compliance with the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended effective January 1, 2009 as follows:

1.     The
second sentence of Section 6.A is deleted and replaced with the following:



2.     The
third sentence of Section 7.B is deleted and replaced with the following:



3.     Section 8.B.2
is deleted and replaced with the following:



4.     The
following new Section 8.E is added as follows:



---





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Executive have executed this Agreement, in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, this 30th day of December, 2008 and effective
January 1, 2009.

COMPANY

ATTEST:By:

/s/ William A. Sanger

By:Its:

Chairman and CEO

Its:




EXECUTIVE/s/ Todd G. ZimmermanPrint:

Todd G. Zimmerman


---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1





               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Schuff Steel Company 1998 Director
Compensation Plan, of our report dated February 20, 1998, except for Note 16 as
to which the date is March 18, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Schuff Steel Company included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP






Phoenix, Arizona
October 27, 1998


                                        9
----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|

----

|  |
|--|
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23505]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 18, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
77 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-17, CP2024-17.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-23505 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000784

14-DEC-2016

08:21 AM
IIA

Calendar No. 339

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 62

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 21, 1999

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary change

between Georgia and South Carolina.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONSENT OF CONGRESS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given

5 to the establishment of the boundary between the States

6 of Georgia and South Carolina.

7 (b) NEW BOUNDARY.—The boundary referred to in

8 subsection (a) is the boundary—

9 (1) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act

10 Number 1044 (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Gov-
2

HJ 62 RS

1 ernor on April 5, 1994, and agreed to by the State

2 of South Carolina in Act Number 375 (S.B. No.

3 1315) approved by the Governor on May 29, 1996;

4 (2) agreed to by the State of Georgia in Act

5 Number 1044 (S.B. No. 572) approved by the Gov6 ernor on April 5, 1994, and agreed to by the State

7 of South Carolina in an Act approved by its Gov8 ernor not later than 5 years after the date of the en9 actment of this joint resolution;

10 (3) agreed to by the State of South Carolina in

11 Act Number 375 (S.B. No. 1315) approved by the

12 Governor on May 29, 1996, and agreed to by the

13 State of Georgia in an Act approved by its Governor

14 not later than 5 years after the date of the enact15 ment of this joint resolution; or

16 (4) agreed to by the States of Georgia and

17 South Carolina in Acts approved by each of their

18 Governors not later than 5 years after the date of

19 the enactment of this joint resolution.

20 (c) COMPACT.—The Acts referred to in subsection (b)

21 are recognized by Congress as an interstate compact pur-
3

HJ 62 RS

1 suant to section 10 of article I of the United States Con2 stitution.

Passed the House of Representatives September 21,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Calendar No. 339

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 62

JOINT RESOLUTION

To grant the consent of Congress to the boundary

change between Georgia and South Carolina.

OCTOBER 21, 1999

Reported without amendment