alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**I, Paul A. Lang, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances 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 includedin this 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (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: August 12, 2005   /s/ Paul A. Lang     Paul A. Lang
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ROGER WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2032 FCD KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On May 20, 2005, petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, requested that this

action be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed

without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); see also Rule 11, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus

Cases Under Section 2254.

DATED: May 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

will2032.159 

Case 2:04-cv-02032-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

KINGSAIRE, INC. d/b/a KINGS AIRE, 

INC.,

 Appellant,

v.

JORGE MELENDEZ,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-11-00372-CV

On Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(Cause No. 2009-4709) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, both in this Court and the court below, for which let execution issue. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00232-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., A 

CHILD

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

FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On July 7, 2010, and July 20, 2010, we notified appellant, in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not paid 

the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
2

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 5, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ELAINE T. ACQUAVIVA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 383 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
No. 07-15-00222-CR

Don Eric Wolters

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 181st District Court

 of Randall County

November 20, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 20, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the

181st District Court of Randall County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with

this Court’s opinion entered this day.

o O o

FILE COPY
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4778 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4778

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the exclusion for 
certain employer payments of student loans under educational assistance 
                          programs permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2024

 Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Thune) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the exclusion for 
certain employer payments of student loans under educational assistance 
                          programs permanent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Employer Participation in Repayment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYER PAYMENTS OF STUDENT LOANS UNDER 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 127(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``in the case of payments made before 
January 1, 2026,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to payments made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 06/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.56 N 76.20 WMeters AGL
(Reap. Dec. 8520)

#### Border Brokerage Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 554-E, etc.

(Decided January 20, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The merchandise covered by these appeals consists of firebrick imported from Canada and invoiced with descriptions the same as those set forth in paragraph 2 below.

> 2) At the time of exportation neither a foreign value, an export value, nor a United States value existed for such or similar merchandise, and the cost of production for the imported merchandise, in Canadian dollars per 1,000 pieces, was as given below, less 10 percent:

> 1-1-43

> to

> 11-18-46

> Straights or squares_ 61. 00

> Side arch, end wedge, necks, soaps, jambs, keys, feather edge,

> splits 1JÍ, 1% and 2"_ 61. 00

> Tongue and groove, groove only_ 63. 50

> Splits *}i, %*and 1"_ 64. 00

> Circles and skews_ 70. 00

> Large straights, large end wedge, “E” blocks, flatbacks_91. 50

> 3)The appeals are abandoned as to all merchandise except that invoiced under the descriptions given in paragraph 2, and upon this stipulation the appeals enumerated in attached schedule may be deemed to be submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper *507basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> Canadian dollars per 1,000 pieces 1-1-43 to 11-18-46

> Straights or squares_ 61.00

> Side arch, end wedge, necks, soaps, jambs, keys, feather edge,

> splits *1%,*1% and 2"_ 61.00

> Tongue and groove, groove only_ 63.50

> Splits *%*and 1"_ 64.00

> Circles and skews_ 70.00

> Large straights, large end wedge, “E” blocks, flatbacks-91.50

> less 10 per centum

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
----

**Exhibit 32**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Prospero Minerals Corp. (“Prospero”) on Form 10-Q/ASB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Etoile Pinder, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Prospero.

**PROSPERO MINERALS CORP.**

*By:/s/ Hubert Pinder*

Name: Hubert Pinder   Title **:**Chief Financial Officer     Dated: March 13th, 2009

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

David L. Fulbright,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2490 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

D. L. Runnels, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel,

applied for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of his affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas

corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 4 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner

may be entitled to relief.

I therefore grant petitioner’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis and direct respondent to respond to petitioner’s

application within 60 days. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254

Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts

or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254

Cases. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served

within 30 days of service of an answer. If the response to

petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within 30

days of service of the motion, and respondent’s reply, if any,

shall be filed within 15 days thereafter. The Clerk of the Court

shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s November 22, 2004, petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves, Attorney General

for the State of California.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 4 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 47903.

#### Petitions 6214-R, etc., of G. Klein & Sons (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

From the testimony of a member of the petitioning firm and an examination of the record the court was satisfied there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or t'o conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petitions were therefore granted.
Exhibit 31.01

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14

         I, Jason McDiarmid, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

         4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 17, 2005

/s/ Jason McDiarmid
----------------------------
Jason McDiarmid
Principal Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY LUGENE PARKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2695 FCD GGH P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate his original complaint. On

October 11, 2005, the court ordered service of the amended complaint filed August 22, 2005. If

plaintiff wishes to amend his allegations, he must file a proposed second amended complaint and

a motion for leave to amend.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 12, 2006, motion

to reinstate the original complaint is denied.

DATED: 5/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

park2695.den

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 28 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 58060.

protest 219341-K (New York).

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass bead Christmas tree ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Walco Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1445), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4602 

To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a National 

Guard and Reserve Center at Fort Eisenhower, Georgia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a National Guard and Reserve Center at Fort 

Eisenhower, Georgia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Eisenhower Na5 tional Guard Support Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION 

7 OF A NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE CEN8 TER AT FORT EISENHOWER, GEORGIA. 

9 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec10 retary of Defense for fiscal year 2025 $21,000,000 for the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4602 IS

1 construction of a National Guard and Reserve Center at 

2 Fort Eisenhower, Georgia. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 66841.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/23886, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharacterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58040.

protests 166868-K/13087, 169705-K/14011, and 170853-K/14016 (New Orleans).

#### Caron Spinning Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “T. D. 53159 Clean Content” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
May 1, 1958

No. 61885.

#### General Chain & Belt Company *v.*United States,

protest 273205-K.

C. D. 1971. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

March 30,2007 

Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluations Section 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 281 5 

Sacramento, CA 9581 2 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Attached is the Rule Action Package for Rule 4565 (Biosolids, Animal Manure, and 

Poultry Litter Operations), which was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District Governing Board on March 15, 2007. We request that the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) transmit Rule 4565 and the appropriate documentation to the 

United States Enviror~mental Protection Agency (EPA) as a State lrr~plerr~entatior~ Plan 

(SIP) revision. 

Included with this Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 

1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

2. Clean Copy of Rule 4565 

3. Evidence of Public Hearing 

4. Governing Board Resolution 

5. ARB APCDIAQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

6. Non-EPA Test Methods 

7. Governing Board Memo 

8. Staff Report with appendices, including Public Comments and District Responses. 

The Rule Action Package is being transn-~itted by e-mail to ARB staff. If you have any 

questions, please contact Sandra Lowe-Leseth at (559) 230-5833 or by e-mail at 

sandra.loweleseth@vaIleyair.org. The District thanks you and your staff for your 

assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Nester 

Director of Planning 

Attachments 

Northern Region Central Region (Main Office) Southern Region 

4800 Enterprise Way 1990 E. Gettyshurg Avenue 2700 M Street, Suite 275 

Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2373 

Tel: (209) 557-6400 FAX: (209) 557-6475 Tel: (559) 230-6000 FAX: (559) 230.6061 Tel: 1661) 326-6900 FAX: (661) 326-6985 

www.valleyair.org 

Printed on recycled paper. 0
No. 56448.

protests 177996-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Freedman & Slater, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 56438.

protest 177547-K (New York).

#### L. G. Kingsley *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.