alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, FRANK A. DUNN, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the second quarterof 2003 of Nortel Networks Limited;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 11, 2003   “FRANK A. DUNN”
No. 74-5926.

#### Jewell *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the First Division,

February 16, 1940

No. 43234.

#### Protests 726451-G, etc., of Arthur H. Thomas Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bent cylinder glass the same as that which was the subject of *Semon Bache*v. *United States*(T. D. 47480). The claim at *l2%i,*cents per pound under paragraph 219 and T. D. 45313, plus 5 percent ad valorem under paragraph 224, was therefore sustained.
*

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3017

___________

William E. Hawkins, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Eastern

Unknown Agent, of the Federal * District of Missouri.

Bureau of Investigation; Unknown *

Deputy, United States Marshals for * [UNPUBLISHED]

the Eastern District of Missouri, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 29, 2002

Filed: December 6, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate William E. Hawkins appeals the district court's*

 preservice

dismissal, without prejudice, of Hawkins's civil rights action, and the later denial of

his motion for reconsideration. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude
-2-

the district court properly dismissed for the reasons stated in the court's ruling, and

the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Hawkins's pending in forma pauperis motion

as moot. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 54914.

#### Leacock & Co., Inc. v. United States,

protest 158770-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting-of rayon and linen articles, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon said rayon and linen articles. The protest was sustained to this extent.
COURT OF APPEA L S

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HAYDON BUILDING CORPORATION

,

Appellant,

v.

JACIE LYNN GREEN

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00073

- CV

Appeal from the

41s t District Court

of El Paso County , Texas

Cause No. 2015DCV1968

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 all costs of appeal for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 20 24

.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

July 31, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
STATE OF DELAWARE
 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
 

& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 

655 S. Bay Road, Suije 5N 

DoVER,DELAWARE19901 Telephone: (302) 739 - 9402 

Fax No.: (302) 739 - 3106 

CERTIFICATION 

April 26, 20 II 

I hereby certify that a public hearing was held February 1,2011, on a revision to the State of 

Delaware State Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance ofthe National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, by amending 7 DE Admin Code 1124­

CONTROL OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS, by revising, Section 47.0 

"Offset Lithographic Printing. The revision updates relevant regulations to implement 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) controls on emission sources covered in 

EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) or Alternate Control Techniques (ACT). EPA 

has updated several CTGs and the afore-mentioned revision to 7 DE Admin Code 1124 

reflect DE's efforts accordingly. This revision is effective April 11, 2011. 

I further certify that the hearing was held in accordance with the notice required by Subsection 

51.102 of 40 CFR 51. 

Printed on 

Recycled Paper
No. 43265.

#### Protests 969522-G, etc., of Levin Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel paper play balls similar to those involved in Abstract 40492 were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413. Squawker balloons were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409 on the authority of Abstract 40493.
#### Jerry MAHAFFEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas PAGE, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-4137.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 26, 1998.

Before CUMMINGS, FLAUM, and ROYNER, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by petitioner-appellant on August 27, 1998, and the answer of respondent-appellee, all of the members of the original panel have voted to grant the petition for rehearing. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is granted, and the panel will take the case under advisement on the briefs and the record.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1954 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for expedited security 

screenings for members of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for expedited security screenings for members of the Armed 

Forces. 

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 ‘‘Risk-Based Security 

5 Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1954 IS

1 SEC. 2. SECURITY SCREENING FOR MEMBERS OF THE 

2 ARMED FORCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44903 of title 49, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(m) SECURITY SCREENING FOR MEMBERS OF THE

7 ARMED FORCES.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Assistant Secretary of 

9 Homeland Security (Transportation Security Admin10 istration), in consultation with the Department of 

11 Defense, shall develop and implement a plan to pro12 vide expedited security screening services for a mem13 ber of the armed forces, and, to the extent possible, 

14 any accompanying family member, if the member of 

15 the armed forces, while in uniform, presents docu16 mentation indicating official orders for air transpor17 tation departing from a primary airport (as defined 

18 in section 47102). 

19 ‘‘(2) PROTOCOLS.—In developing the plan, the 

20 Assistant Secretary shall consider— 

21 ‘‘(A) leveraging existing security screening 

22 models used by airports and air carriers to re23 duce passenger wait times before entering a se24 curity screening checkpoint; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1954 IS

1 ‘‘(B) establishing standard guidelines for 

2 the screening of military uniform items, includ3 ing combat boots; and 

4 ‘‘(C) incorporating any new screening pro5 tocols into an existing trusted passenger pro6 gram, as established pursuant to section 

7 109(a)(3) of the Aviation and Transportation 

8 Security Act (49 U.S.C. 114 note), or into the 

9 development of any new credential or system 

10 that incorporates biometric technology and 

11 other applicable technologies to verify the iden12 tity of individuals traveling in air transpor13 tation. 

14 ‘‘(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Assistant 

15 Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees 

16 of Congress a report on the implementation of the 

17 plan.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Not later than 180 days 

19 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Sec20 retary shall implement the plan required by this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EX-10.1.1



 




Exhibit 10.1.2




Schedule identifying agreements, entered
into between GLG Partners, Inc. (the “Company”) and each of the following persons, substantially identical to the Indemnification Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.1.1.





	1.	 	Noam Gottesman
	 
	2.	 	Emmanuel Roman
	 
	3.	 	Pierre Lagrange
	 
	4.	 	Paul Myners
	 
	5.	 	Peter Weinberg
	 
	6.	 	Ian Ashken
	 
	7.	 	Simon White
	 
	8.	 	Alejandro R. San Miguel
	 
	9.	 	Leslie J. Schreyer
	 
	10.	 	Victoria Parry
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: December 17, 2015 520213

________________________________ In the Matter of CAMILLO DOUGLAS, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COREY BEDARD, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 27, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________ Camillo Douglas, Malone, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.), entered November 12, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following a confidential investigation, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with soliciting others to smuggle contraband, violating package room procedures and violating telephone program procedures. Petitioner was found guilty of all charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and that determination was administratively affirmed, with a-2- 520213

modification to the penalty imposed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting, among other things, that he was denied the right to attend the disciplinary hearing. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued. We affirm. The record reflects that the Hearing Officer, after being informed of petitioner's refusal to attend the hearing or provide a reason why, met with petitioner and petitioner refused to attend the hearing, despite being informed that the hearing would proceed in his absence. The Hearing Officer and the correction officer who accompanied him to petitioner's cell executed a form documenting petitioner's refusal, which petitioner refused to sign. In view of the foregoing, petitioner's contention that he was improperly denied the right to attend the hearing is without merit (see Matter of Toliver v New York State Commr. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 114 AD3d 987, 988 [2014]; Matter of Rouse v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1310, 1310 [2012]). Furthermore, petitioner's failure to attend the hearing renders any procedural challenges to the hearing unpreserved (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 84 AD3d 1596, 1596-1597 [2011], appeals dismissed 17 NY3d 781, 915 [2011]; Matter of Tafari v Selsky, 36 AD3d 982, 983 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]). Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1958 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1958

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2011

            Referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until May 31, 2012.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``May 31, 2012''.
    (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2011'' and inserting ``May 31, 2012''.
    (c) Repeal.--The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 
112-36; 125 Stat. 386) is amended by striking section 130.

            Passed the Senate December 7, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John P. Powers, Chief Executive Officer of Intraop Medical Corporation,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Intraop Medical
Corporation;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

(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 registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


                                                      /s/   John P. Powers
                                                      --------------------------
                                                         John P. Powers
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                         Date: August 7, 2008
No. 96-8033.

#### Phillips *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2


Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: 
Transfer Treaty Cases

AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: U.S. Parole Commission is correcting its regulation concerning 
prisoners transferred pursuant to a treaty to remove one redundant 
word. The intended effect is to improve the clarity of the regulation. 
The Parole Commission is also correcting the regulation to reflect the 
reduction in the number of hearing officers necessary to conduct a 
parole hearing. The reduction was originally made in the final rule 
published on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38569).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela A. Posch, Office of General 
Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, 
Maryland 20815, telephone (301) 492-5959.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Probation and parole.

    Accordingly, 28 CFR Part 2 is amended as follows:

PART 2--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 28 CFR Part 2 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).

Sec. 2.62  [Amended]

    2. Section 2.62(a)(6) is amended in the second sentence by removing 
the word ``set'' the second time it appears.
    3. In Sec. 2.62, in paragraph (h)(5), remove the words ``the 
panel'' in each place they occur, and add the words ``the examiner'' in 
their place.

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
Michael J. Gaines,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-19708 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
(Reap. Dec. 9935)

#### James G. Wiley, a/c Yale Sales Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4093.

(Decided March 1, 1961)

*Lawrence <6 Tuttle {Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*William*JET. *Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *{Richard E. EitsOiltlton,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Me. Glad : If it please the Court, this appeal is abandoned except as to item number H 300 R/5, and as to that item, I offer to stipulate that during the period of exportation there was no foreign, export or United States value, as defined by Section 402 of the Act, for such or similar merchandise, and that the cost of production of such or similar merchandise for that item during this period of exportation is represented by the figure of $3.70, less 33% per cent.

> Me. FitzGibbon : That is agreed.

On the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described on the invoice as item number H 300 E/5 and that such value is $3.70, less 33% per centum.

As to all other items of merchandise, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Shareef COUSIN.

No. 98-KK-3198.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 6, 1999.

In re Cousin, Shareef; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 377-134, 376-479, 375-893; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 98KW-2415.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ application. I am not convinced that defendant understood the consequences of his guilty pleas.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.