alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Norton, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of FTD, Inc.;

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 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 registrant 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 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 (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer(s) 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 (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 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.

|Date: October 28, 2003 |  | /s/ROBERT L. NORTON
|---------------------- |  | -------------------
|                       |  | Name:              
|                       |  | Title:             

---

QuickLinks
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BENNIE BARNES, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 03-389 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

Defendants. )

O R D E R

On November 24, 2003, Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed the instant civil

rights action. This matter was assigned to United States District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin and

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules

72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

On April 18, 2005, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint be granted [Document # 49],

the motion to dismiss be granted [Document # 40], and the action be dismissed generally on the

basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Document # 58.

The undersigned reviewed the case de novo and, on May 31, 2005, issued a final order

adopting the Report and Recommendation, at least partly on the basis that no objections were

filed. Document # 61. 

Following the closing of this case, Plaintiff requested that this case be reopened in order

to review his Objections to the Report and Recommendation which had been filed on May 31,

2005 (the same day as the final order closing the case). By Order dated June 17, 2005, this case

was reopened. 

The Objections as well as the Response in Opposition to the Objections have now been

Case 1:03-cv-00389-SJM-SPB Document 68 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
2

reviewed and considered by this Court. 

AND NOW, this 25th, day of July, 2005;

Following a de novo review of the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Baxter is adopted as the opinion of this

Court. Judgment is to be granted in favor of Defendants. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Courts close this case.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00389-SJM-SPB Document 68 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Rollie C. McDONALD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1016.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 15, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The appellant was tried before the court without jury upon a charge of robbery. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twenty years in the state penitentiary. Subsequently, he filed a motion for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. The motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Appellant urges on this appeal that the trial court erred in not granting him a new trial upon the evidence presented at his evidentiary hearing upon his CrPR 1.850 motion.

*78The basic argument of the appellant is that the weight of the evidence before the trial judge at the evidentiary hearing on his motion for relief from judgment and sentence was such that the trial judge should have found that appellant’s conviction was based upon a mistaken identification. Proceedings pursuant to CrPR 1.850 are not ordinarily available for a second review of the sufficiency of the evidence upon an issue of fact tried at the time of the movant’s trial upon the criminal charge concerned. Swindle v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 132; Murray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 292. In the present instance, the trial judge saw fit to hold an evidentiary hearing upon appellant’s motion pursuant to CrPR 1.850 because of the extraordinary circumstance that another person had allegedly confessed to the crime for which the appellant was convicted. No issue is raised on this appeal as to the propriety of appellant’s use of the procedure pursuant to CrPR 1.850 for the purpose sought to be accomplished. But compare, Falagon v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 62.

Since every human institution is fallible it is true that mistakes in identification are sometimes made. An appellate court does not try the issues of fact which are made when a prisoner alleges that such a mistake has been made. It is our function to review the judgment of the trial court and to reverse such findings of fact only when it clearly appears that there is no reasonable basis for the conclusion reached by the trial judge. The evidence on behalf of the appellant in the eviden-tiary hearing is not so compelling that we can say that as a matter of law the trial judge erred in failing to grant a new trial. Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 699.

Affirmed.
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

December 30, 2013

María Angélica Ceja 

Comercializadora De Plásticos de Alta Calidad, S.A. de C.V.

16 de Septiembre #20 Col. Centro

Chavinda, Michoacán C.P. 59580

México

Dear Ms. Ceja,

The U.S. EPA has reviewed the tarp testing data submitted for the Acolchado Verde High 

Barrier 1.28 mil tarp. Based on the calculated mass transfer coefficients (MTCs) and the 

corresponding cut points determined by EPA as a basis for assigning buffer zone credits (DP 

Barcode 385314, Second Update to Health Effects Division Recommendations for Good 

Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits Dawson, Smith and Shelat; January 11, 

2011) at this time the Acolchado Verde High Barrier 1.28 mil tarp qualifies for a 40% buffer 

zone credit for methyl bromide, chloropicrin, and chloropicrin with 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D)

and a 10% buffer zone credit for methyl isothiocyanate (MITC). The tarp will also be listed on 

the dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) website for approved tarps. The tarp, in all the color varieties 

you requested, will be listed on the following EPA websites,

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/tarpcredits/ and 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/dmds-tarps/, with the following tarp 

names:

· Agroplasticos copac, black, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, black/white, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, white, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, white/black/white, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, black/silver, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, silver, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, clear, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, black/clear/black, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, thermic brown, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, brown, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, thermic green, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, green, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, red, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, blue, ≥ 1.28 mil
· Agroplasticos copac, black/silver, ≥ 1.28 mil

· Agroplasticos copac, black/black, ≥ 1.28 mil

Please see the enclosures for the EPA’s full review. 

Please contact me at (703) 347-8652 or at gayoso.jose@epa.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely,

José Gayoso

Chemical Review Manager

Risk Management & Implementation Branch 2

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs

Enclosures:

Dawson, J. Health Effects Division (HED) concurrence on BEAD Analytical Chemistry Branch 

review of permeability data for Acolchado Verde High Barrier Film and classification of results 

for tarp credit purposes. D415188. December 12, 2013.

Kamel, A. Data review of the permeability of various fumigants through Acolchado Verde High

Barrier film, MRID 49209201- ACB Project# B13-19. September 18, 2013.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of    our company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of our company.     /s/ Scott D. Peters           Scott D. Peters *Chief Financial Officer*Date: August 22, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral information language in such filing.
<Page>

                 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER


      This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER, dated as of
September 14, 2000 (this "First Amendment"), is entered into by and between
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and BD
Recapitalization Corp., a Delaware corporation ("MergerSub").

                            R E C I T A L S

      WHEREAS, the Company and MergerSub entered into that certain Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of May 17, 2000 (the "Merger Agreement");

      WHEREAS, the Company and MergerSub wish to amend the Merger Agreement to
reduce the Termination Fee (as defined in Section 10.2 of the Merger Agreement);
and

      WHEREAS, the Special Committee (as defined in the Merger Agreement), the
Board of Directors of the Company and the sole stockholder of MergerSub have
each approved and adopted this First Amendment and have approved the
transactions contemplated hereby;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

      1.   SECTION 10.2(a). Section 10.2(a) of the Merger Agreement is amended
           to reduce the Termination Fee (as defined in the Merger Agreement)
           from $11 million to $5 million.

      2.   RELATIONSHIP TO MERGER AGREEMENT. Consistent and in accordance with
Section 11.3 of the Merger Agreement, the parties hereto acknowledge that, other
than as expressly provided in this First Amendment, this First Amendment shall
have no effect on the rights, obligations, duties (fiduciary or otherwise) or
remedies available or

<Page>


due under the Merger Agreement or applicable law, whether legal, equitable or
otherwise.

      3.   GOVERNING LAW.  This First Amendment shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.

      4.   COUNTERPARTS.  This First Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same
instrument.






                                       2
<Page>


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to
be duly executed by their respective authorized officers as of the day and year
first above written.



                                   PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.


                                   By:  /s/ JAMES M. MYERS
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Name:  James M. Myers
                                       Title: Senior Vice President
                                              and Chief Financial
                                              Officer

                                   BD RECAPITALIZATION CORP.


                                   By:  /s/ JOHN G. DANHAKL
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Name:  John G. Danhakl
                                       Title: President





                                       3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2885 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2885

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to permit States to record 
   in writing that applicants for supplemental nutrition assistance 
 program benefits have signed an application through a recorded verbal 
                       assent over the telephone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2023

  Mr. Welch (for himself and Mr. Fetterman) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to permit States to record 
   in writing that applicants for supplemental nutrition assistance 
 program benefits have signed an application through a recorded verbal 
                       assent over the telephone.

    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 ``Streamlining Nutrition Paperwork Act 
of 2023'' or the ``SNP Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 11(e)(2)(C) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2020(e)(2)(C)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii)--
                    (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or video phone'' 
                after ``telephonic''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or by gesture over a video phone 
                for hearing impaired applicants'' before the period at 
                the end; and
            (2) in clause (iii)(I), by inserting ``as audio or in 
        writing'' after ``record''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act, and the amendment made by this Act, shall take effect on 
January 1, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




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 ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin
      Smyth, Interim
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. section 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 and 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 the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


November 19,
                2007
            
            */s/
                Robin
                Smyth*Robin
                SmythInterim Chief Financial
              Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX

Shane Young Facility Manager 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941.05

November 8, 2013

SierraPacific Industries -AndersonDivision 19758 Riverside Avenue Anderson, CA 96007 InReply Refer To: AIR-3 SAC 12-01



### Subject: Proposed PSD Permit for Sierra Pacific Industries -Anderson Division Dear Mr. Young: This letter and the enclosed materials are inresponse to your application for a CleanAirAct Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permitto construct and operate a new cogeneration unit and ancillary equipment atthe SierraPacific Industries' existing lumber manufacturing facility in Anderson, California. We have reviewed your application, and supporting materials, based onthe criteria in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. Enclosed are the proposed PSD permit, Supplemental Fact Sheet/ AmbientAir Quality Impact Report (AAQIR), and public notice. The public notice announces the commencement ofthe public comment period for the proposed permit, and the public hearing scheduled for December 10, 2013. The public notice will also be published inthe Redding Record Searchlight on Friday, November 8, 2013. Ifyou have any questions, you may contact me at (415) 972-3974 orrios.gerardo@epa.gov, or Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947-4156 orkelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.

Gerardo C. Rios Chief, Permits Office AirDivision

### Enclosures
cc: Eric Albright, ENVIRON International Corporation David C. Brown, SierraPacific Industries Ross Bell, Shasta County

### Air Quality Management District John Waldrop, Shasta County Air Quality Management District Robert Fletcher, CaliforniaAir Resources Board

2
SERVED: JULY 6, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICEOF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MEDFORD AIR SERVICE, LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS FAA-2011-1289 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

,.. 

.. 

On December 1, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. On November 29, 2011, Medford Air Service, LLC 

(hereinafter "Respondent") had requested a hearing. By facsimile dated July 5, 2012, 

Respondent filed a Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, citing settlement ofthe matter. 

14 C.F .R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an ·agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney · 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and. the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED that: 
2 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

?(LJJ_C.~A 

Attachments - Service List 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

'• 

)·· -. 

'y. 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Stuart W. Smith, Respondent's Counsel 

Miller & Associates 

5005 S. W. Meadows Rd., Suite 405 

Lake Oswego, OR 97035 

TEL: 503-598-1966 

FAJ{: 503-598-9593 

David F. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

·Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2165 

FAJ{: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 .. · 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F AJ{: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1289 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

., 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2- ..
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**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 ofdELiA*s Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 3, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen I. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | By:    | /s/                     | Stephen I. Kahn |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|-----------------|--------|
|   |   | Stephen I. Kahn         |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | June 17, 2003           |

 

----