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





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Billy M. Dodson, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ministry Partners Investment Company, LLC (the “Company”);




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




4.  The Company's other certifying officer 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 Company 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 Company, 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)  Intentionally omitted;




(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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;




(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has material affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company's managers (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 Company'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 Company's internal control over financial reporting.








Date: March 29, 2011
By: /s/ Billy M. DodsonBilly M. DodsonPresident
### Electrical-analog analysis of the hydrologic system, Tucson basin, southeastern Arizona

By: T. W. Anderson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1939C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Why does the Announcement of Public Hearing refer to NOx and then stop referring to NOx 

and refer only to NO2? 

Since we know that air in Avenal sometimes violates NAAQS for NOx, and the Project will 

increase NOx in Avenal, I can not justify grandfathering the NOx. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Arthur Unger

 

Comments on Avenal Energy Project PSD

Arthur Unger 

to: 

R9AirPermits 

03/10/2011 11:45 PM 

Cc: 

Arthur D Unger 

Hide Details 

From: Arthur Unger 

To: R9AirPermits@EPA 

Cc: Arthur D Unger 

History: This message has been forwarded.

Page 1 of 1

4/15/2011
109 STAT. 790 PUBLIC LAW 104–78—DEC. 28, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1253:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–290 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Dec. 12, considered and passed House.

Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–78

104th Congress

An Act

To rename the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Don Edwards

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

RENAMED AS DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

(a) REFUGE RENAMED.—The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (established by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide

for the establishment of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife

Refuge’’, approved June 30, 1972 (86 Stat. 399 et seq.)), is hereby

renamed and shall be known as ‘‘the Don Edwards San Francisco

Bay National Wildlife Refuge’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any statute, rule, regulation, Executive order, publication, map, or paper or other document

of the United States to the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife

Refuge is deemed to refer to the Don Edwards San Francisco

Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to

provide for the establishment of the San Francisco Bay National

Wildlife Refuge’’, approved June 30, 1972 (86 Stat. 399 et seq.),

is amended by striking ‘‘San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge’’.

Approved December 28, 1995.

16 USC 668dd

note.

Dec. 28, 1995

[H.R. 1253]
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



|                                     |  |                               
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|Entity Name                          |  | State/Country of Incorporation
|ADV Engineering S.A.                 |  | France                        
|Horizon Semiconductors, Inc.         |  | Virginia                      
|Opal Acquisition Corporation         |  | Delaware                      
|Systems On Silicon, Inc.             |  | Delaware                      
|TranSwitch Asia PTE Ltd.             |  | Singapore                     
|TranSwitch Asia Ltd.                 |  | Hong Kong                     
|TranSwitch II Corp.                  |  | Delaware                      
|TranSwitch III, Inc.                 |  | Delaware                      
|TranSwitch Europe N.V./S.A.          |  | Belgium                       
|TranSwitch India Private Limited     |  | India                         
|TranSwitch International Corp.       |  | Delaware                      
|Lehman Silicon Solutions S.A.        |  | Switzerland                   
|TranSwitch Silicon Valley, Inc.      |  | California                    
|TranSwitch Technologies Canada, Inc. |  | Canada                        
|TX Holdings Inc.                     |  | Delaware
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KYLE SEIDEL, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-16-1807

:

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, : (Judge Brann)

ET AL., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

October 4, 2016

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT;

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this action to

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case in this Court

CLOSED.

 BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

1

Case 4:16-cv-01807-MWB-JVW Document 9 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES(1)    As of April 30, 2013

Incorporated in Portugal

Directel
Listas Telefónicas Internacionais, Lda.(2)
Portugal TelecomAssociação de Cuidados de Saúde
Portugal Telecom Inovação, S.A.
PrevisãoSociedade Gestora de Fundos de Pensões, S.A. (82.05%)
PT Centro Corporativo, S.A.
PT Comunicações, S.A.
PT ContactTelemarketing e Serviços de Informação, S.A.
PT Móveis, S.G.P.S., S.A.
PT Participações, SGPS, S.A.
PT Portugal, S.G.P.S., S.A.
PT Prestações-Mandatária de Aquisições e Gestão de Bens, S.A.
PT Pro, Serviços Administrativos e de Gestão Partilhados, S.A.
PT SalesServiços de Telecomunicações e Sistemas de Informação, S.A.
PT Sistemas de Informação, S.A.
PT Ventures, SGPS, S.A.(2)
TMNTelecomunicações Móveis Nacionais, S.A.

Incorporated in Brazil

Oi Entities:Telemar Participações S.A. (direct and indirect ownership interest of 25.6%)Oi S.A. (direct and indirect ownership interest of 23.3%, including through the Telemar Participações S.A.
interest above)Telemar Norte Leste S.A. (direct and indirect ownership interest of 23.3%, including through the Telemar
Participações S.A. interest above)Contax Entities:CTX Participações S.A. (direct and indirect ownership interest of 44.4%)Contax Participações S.A. (direct and indirect ownership interest of 21.1%, including through the CTX
Participações S.A. interest above)Contax S.A. (direct and indirect ownership interest of 21.1%, including through the CTX Participações S.A. and
Contax Participações S.A. interest above)


Bratel
Brasil, S.A.
Portugal Telecom, Brasil, S.A.
PT Inovação Brasil, Ltda.

Incorporated in the Netherlands

Africatel
Holdings B.V. (75.0%)
Portugal Telecom International Finance B.V.

---



Other

Cabo
Verde Telecom, S.A. (40.0%)(2)
CSTCompanhia Santomensa de Telecomunicações, S.A.R.L. (51.0%)(2)
CTMCompanhia de Telecomunicações de Macau, S.A.R.L. (28.0%)(3)
MTCMobile Telecommunications Limited (34.0%)(2)
Timor Telecom, S.A. (41.1%)
Unitel (25.0%)(2)



---



QuickLinks
#### Claire M. CARROLL, Appellant, v. Louis G. CARROLL, Appellee.

No. 69-196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 9, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W ashington 98057 - 3356

May 1, 2013 Mr. Jonathan Moritz Delta Engineering 13 DBRA Way New Castle, DE 19720 Dear Mr. Moritz : We received your April 23, 2013 , petition for exemption from the requirements of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.251 , to modify the external configur ation of airplanes for installation of large radomes . These modifications would be part of Delta’s FAA Supplemental Ty

pe Certificate (STC) projects . The exemption, if granted, would change V d to V mo/M mo with validated Computational Fluid Dy namics ( CFD ) to V d . This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management S ys tem (FDMS), was given Docket No. FAA - 2013 - 0391 . We are reviewing yo ur request , and will contact you if we need additional information . A summary

of your petition will be published i n the Federal Register for public comment , in accordance with the requirements of § 11.85 . You will be advised of the agency 's decision on your petitions as soon as possible. If you have an y questions or c oncerns regarding your petition or the petition process, pleas e contact Don Stimson at 425 - 227 - 1129 , or e - mail Don.Stimson @faa .gov. Sincerel y, Michael Menkin Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
#### Grace W. WHITNEY and Marvin G. Whitney, as Executors of the Estate of Edward T. Whitney, deceased, Petitioners, v. Edward W. WHITNEY, as Executor of the Estate of Ralph H. Whitney, deceased, Respondent.

No. 40630.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 241 So.2d 436.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Charles NEVILS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ALLEN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 5941.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1977.

Ryder & Deshotels by Errol D. Deshotels, Oberlin, for defendant and appellant.

D. Michael Mooney, Lake Charles, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, WATSON, FORET and STOKER, JJ.

STOKER, Judge.

This case was consolidated for trial and appeal with several suits one of which is *476
      *Young v. Allen Parish School Board,*349 So.2d 469, which is being decided on this date.

For the reasons which we assigned in *Young v. Allen Parish School Board,*supra, we take the following action in this case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court insofar as it renders judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Charles Nevils, against Allen Parish School Board and assesses court costs to the latter. However, the one judgment rendered and signed for all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated case (described in *Young*v. *Allen Parish School Board,*supra) granted the same form of decree to each plaintiff and ordered the total amount of salary to be paid for the year 1975-76, rather than awarding the difference in what was actually received and what should have been paid. The portion of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this suit, Charles Nevils, reads: “IT IS STILL FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Charles Nevils (sic) the salary of Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three ($11,293.00) and No/100 Dollars for the 1975-76 school term together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand;

For the reasons given in the *Young*case we amend the trial court judgment with respect to the award. Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, Charles Nevils, and against the Allen Parish School Board in the full sum of Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three ($11,293.00) and No/100 Dollars, subject to a credit for all sums paid Charles Nevils as salary by defendant during the 1975-76 school term for Allen Parish, together with legal interest from date of judicial demand on the net amount due under this judgment, all costs of these proceedings in the trial court to be assessed against defendant, Allen Parish School Board, insofar as defendant may be legally cast for such costs.

All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendant-appellant insofar as it may be legally cast for such costs.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

CULPEPPER, J., dissents and assigns written reasons in 5919.

HOOD, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by CULPEPPER, J.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-97-001]


Chandeleur Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

September 18, 1997.
    Take notice on September 12, 1997, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company 
(Chandeleur) amends its August 22, 1997 filing on the following tariff 
sheet to become effective October 1, 1997:

Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5

    Chandeleur is amending its rates from $0.0021 per Dth to $0.0022 
per Dth to reflect the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
Correction for Annual Charges Unit Charge FY 1997 of natural gas 
pipeline companies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211. All such 
protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25295 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
April15, 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building, Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10772 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326 

Dear Sir I Madam: 

Pleas'e- accept this letter as Frontier Airlines, Inc.'s request to extend Exemption No. 10772, 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26326, The current exemption permits exemption from 

121.434 (c) d) (ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to 

allow Frontier Airlines to substitute a qualified and authorized Check Airman and/or Aircrew 

Program Designee for an FAA Inspector to observe a qualifying Pilot In Command (PIC) who is 

completing initial or up-grade training specified in 121.424 during at least one flight leg that 

includes a takeoff and a landing. 

Frontier Airlines, Inc. is confident that gnmting an e~tension of the current Exemption No. 

10772, Regulatory Docket No. FAA:2006-26326, would not reduce the level of safety, nor have 

an adverse impact on the interest of the aircraft owners or the government agencies. Frontier 

asserts that granting this extension is .in the public interest since it will allow Frontier Airlines, 

to continue to provide reliable and timely service to the flying public by reducing the time that 

FAA Inspectors would be required to be away from the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

and would allow Frontier Airlines, greater flexibility in scheduling the required observations. 

Please contact me at 720-374-7500 with any questions. 

Cc. Bill Meehan Dave Welt J.P. Thibodeau Sandy Shepherd Jim Nides
#### Fredrick L. WEINBERG, Appellant, v. EAST LAKE WOODLANDS, LTD., Florida Limited Partnership, Appellee.

No. 78-381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 16, 1978.

Peter T. Roman of Dunbar, Dunbar & Roman, New Port Richey, for appellant.

H. Rex Owen of Owen & McCrory, St. Petersburg, and William J. Deas of Howell & Deas, Jacksonville, for appellee.

*376PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We agree.

Appellant filed a complaint seeking damages and an injunction against what he claimed was the wrongful termination of his membership in appellee’s country club.1 He alleged that upon payment of a fee he was accepted as a member of the club and that he had conducted himself in accordance with all of its rules and regulations. He further alleged that the club had terminated his membership contrary to those rules and regulations and that it failed to provide him with notice and a hearing concerning its proposed expulsion of him. Subsequently, on motion of appellee, the trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice. In so doing, the trial judge observed that he did not think that the controversy between appellant and appellee was a proper one for resolution through the judicial process.

While courts have often been wary of entering into disputes between private social clubs and their members, it has long been the rule in Florida that a person has a right to notice and a hearing when a club proposes to cancel his membership. Moreover, the cancellation must comport with the applicable by-laws or regulations of the club. *LaGorce Country Club v. Cerami,*74 So.2d 95 (Fla.1954); *State ex rel. Barfield v. Florida Yacht Club,*106 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). In. view of these rules, we think that appellant’s complaint stated a cause of action. Of course, we do not reach the merits of appellant’s contention.

In view of our decision we need not discuss the other point which appellant has raised. We vacate the trial court’s order dismissing appellant’s complaint and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellee, East Lake Woodlands, LTD is a Florida Limited Partnership. It owns and operates the East Lake Woodlands Golf and Country Club.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49964-49965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4422-000]

Cinergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Cinergy Services, Inc. 
(Cinergy) tendered for filing on behalf of its operating companies, PSI 
Energy Inc. (PSI) a change to the rate for wheeling service pursuant to 
the Interconnection Agreement (Agreement) between PSI, Hoosier Energy 
Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Hoosier Energy) and Southern Indiana 
Gas and Electric Company.
    The file change modifies PSI's rate for wheeling service to Hoosier 
Energy

[[Page 49965]]

under Service Schedule F--Wheeling of the Agreement.
    PSI has requested a waiver of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations to permit this proposed rate for service to become 
effective November 1, 1997.
    Copies of the filing were served on Hoosier Energy Rural Electric 
Cooperative, Inc., Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company and the 
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before September 30, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25286 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```