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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Richard K. Matros, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sun Healthcare Group,
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 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:
      March 3, 2009
            /s/
      Richard K. MatrosRichard
      K. Matros
              Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### Lewis A. ROSENBAUM v. PEOPLES BANK OF MISSISSIPPI, NA.

No. 49772.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 7, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1978.

Corey & Corey, Lyle Y. Corey, Meridian, for appellant.

Williams, Gunn & Crenshaw, Dal M. Crenshaw, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; Howard R. Pigford, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2005246EN.01002001.xml

| 22.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 246/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 246/20

---

Corrigendum to the amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 203 of 4 August 2005
  )

On page 20, point 5, in the third line of the first subparagraph of Article 104(3):

for:

‘... existing case-law, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate ACT, at any time give its decision by ...’,

read:

‘... existing case-law, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, at any time give its decision by ...’;

in the third line of the second subparagraph of Article 104(3):

for:

‘... the Statute and after hearing the Advocate ACT, where the answer to the question referred to the Court ...’,

read:

‘... the Statute and after hearing the Advocate General, where the answer to the question referred to the Court ...’.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                                  Subsidiaries
                                  ------------

1.       R.C. Cobb, Inc.
2.       Cobb Finance Corp.
3.       Regal Investment Company
4.       Act III Cinemas, Inc.
5.       Act III Theatres, Inc.
6.       A 3 Theatres of Texas, Inc.
7.       A 3 Theatres of San Antonio, Ltd.
8.       General American Theatres, Inc.
9.       Broadway Cinemas, Inc.
10.      TEMT Alaska, Inc.
11.      JR Cinemas, Inc.
12.      Eastgate Theatres, Inc.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, Sal Perisano, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of iParty Corp;

 

2.        Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.        The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)       Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)       Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.        The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)       All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)       Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 12, 2003 | /s/ SAL  PERISANO        |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        | Sal Perisano             |
|                        | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### The BANK OF MIAMI, Appellant, v. Lucille GREENE, Appellee.

No. 70-81.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1970.

Richard C. Carter, Miami, for appellant.

Arthur S. Davis, Hialeah, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY, J., and NATHAN, RAYMOND, G., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant (defendant in the trial court) seeks review of a final judgment for the appellee entered by the trial court pursuant to a non-jury trial on the issue of damages.

This is the second time this case is before this court. See Southern Industrial Savings Bank v. Greene, Fla.App., 1969, 224 So.2d *416.*In the cited opinion, this court affirmed the trial court’s finding as to liability, but reversed for further proceedings on the issue of damages. Pursuant to mandate of this court, the appellee moved for an order setting a hearing date of October 8, 1969. On October 10, 1969, appellant filed its demand for jury trial. Trial was set non-jury during the week of December 15, 1969. Thereafter, appellant moved for and filed an amended answer, interrogatories to the appellee, and another demand for jury trial. The cause ultimately came on for non-jury trial on December 18, 1969, at which time appellant moved for a continuance on the ground that the ap-pellee had not filed answers to interrogatories until the day of the trial. The motion was denied and at trial, the appellee introduced testimony of an expert witness as to damages. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellee moved to amend her complaint to conform to the evidence, said evidence showing a greater loss than alleged in the complaint. The motion was granted and the trial court entered the final judgment appealed herein.

Appellant contends abuse of discretion by the trial court by denying his motion for a continuance and further by permitting ap-pellee to amend her complaint at the conclusion of the trial. A review of the record failed to disclose that the trial judge abused his discretion. Also see Rule 1.190 (b) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.

The remaining issue raised by appellant is that the trial court erred in denying appellant a jury trial. The initial trial was non-jury. The appellant’s right to trial by jury was not revived by this court’s reversal for further proceedings on the issue of damages nor was it revived by the amended complaint which touched the same general issue of damages which was then before the court. See 20 Fla.Jur., Jury § 26. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
126 STAT. 270 PUBLIC LAW 112–101—MAR. 14, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1710: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 157 (2011): Dec. 17, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 158 (2012): Mar. 5, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–101 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JAMES M. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse located at 

222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse’’. 

Approved March 14, 2012. 

Mar. 14, 2012 

[S. 1710] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3290 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish improvements and structural 

alterations as part of home health services for disabled veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish improvements and structural alterations as part of home 

health services for disabled veterans. 

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 ‘‘Autonomy for Disabled 

5 Veterans Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3290 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO FURNISH IMPROVE3 MENTS AND STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AS 

4 PART OF HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR DIS5 ABLED VETERANS. 

6 (a) INCREASE.—Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of 

7 section 1717 of title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

9 by inserting ‘‘in the case of a veteran’’ before the em 

10 dash; and 

11 (2) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and 

12 inserting the following: 

13 ‘‘(A) who first applied for benefits under this 

14 paragraph, for a non-service-connected condition, be15 fore the date of the enactment of the Autonomy for 

16 Disabled Veterans Act, and whose condition the Sec17 retary determines is service-connected after such 

18 date, $6,800; or 

19 ‘‘(B) other than a veteran described in subpara20 graph (A), who first applied for benefits under this 

21 paragraph on or after the date of the enactment of 

22 the Autonomy for Disabled Veterans Act, $9,000.’’. 

23 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION; CAP ON BENE24 FITS.—Such subsection is further amended— 

25 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para26 graph (5); and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3290 IS

1 (2) by inserting, after paragraph (2), the fol2 lowing new paragraphs (3) and (4): 

3 ‘‘(3) On the first day of each fiscal year, the dollar 

4 amounts in effect under paragraph (2) shall— 

5 ‘‘(A) increase by a percentage equal to the per6 centage by which the residential home cost of con7 struction index established under section 2102(e)(3) 

8 of this title increased during the previous fiscal year; 

9 or 

10 ‘‘(B) if such index did not increase during such 

11 previous fiscal year, remain the same. 

12 ‘‘(4) The Secretary may not furnish more than three 

13 improvements or structural alterations under paragraph 

14 (2) to a veteran.’’. 

15 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—A veteran who, before 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act, exhausted the eligi17 bility of such veteran for benefits under such section, shall 

18 not be entitled to additional benefits under such section 

19 by reason of the amendments made by this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 9:27 AM

To: 'rboucher@viztools.tv'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: VizTools LLC (FAA-2015-0605)

August 5, 2015 

Dear Mr. Boucher: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0605). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by August 19, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-1-010]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 2, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing to become part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed 
on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective November 1, 1997.
    National Fuel states that the purpose of this filing is to submit 
actual tariff sheets revised to conform to the Commission letter order 
issued on June 19, 1997, 1997 in Docket No. RP97-1-007 and to conform 
with the GISB Standards incorporated by Order No. 587-C, Standards for 
Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.
    National Fuel states that it is serving copies of this filing with 
its firm customers, interested state commissions and each person 
designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27187 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
255 La. 1091

#### Roy Winford FULGHUM v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50544.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1970.

In re: Roy Winford Fulghum applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. No error of law in the ruling of the trial judge in denying the writ.
Rupprecht Law P. A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

July 15, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Additional Information for Samuel Fleishman (Docket FAA-2015-1624) Regarding Why Granting 

the Petition Will Benefit the Public. 

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Petitioner intends to produce picture and video content. If the petitioner does not have the 

option of using the Petitioner’s UA, the only other way to obtain the aerial footage is by using manned 

aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals on the ground. There are no pilots on 

board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the public on the ground in 

case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most manned aircraft have only 

one engine.

Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet 

enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the 

public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution.

In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust 

which affects the environment while the UA of the petitioner are electric and do not produce any 

emission. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.
2

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there 

was an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less chance of individuals being injured from an 

explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less 

damage in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter 

crash.

Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than manned aircraft. Thus, the public benefits 

because the danger of a mid-air collision is lessened

If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me

at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
Exhibit 23.1 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-76526, 33-80454, 33-88302, 333-2818, 333-07457, 333-62517,333-62983, 333-64139, 333-68161, 333-49004, 333-61412, 333-76826), the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-39453) and the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-37393) of Rural/Metro Corporation of our report dated October 13, 2003,except as to the matter referred to in the section of Note 2 entitled “Earnings Per Share” as to which the date is February 17, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2003 and 2002 and for the years thenended, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

 

**PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**

 

Phoenix, Arizona 

March 2, 2004
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 of Marimba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard C. Wyckoff, Chief Executive Officer
and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented in the Report.





November 12, 2002



/s/ Richard C. WyckoffRichard C. Wyckoff Chief Executive Officer and President