alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
***Exhibit 31.1******CERTIFICATIONS***I, James A. Risher, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Del Global Technologies Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: December 8, 2006           /s/ James A. Risher    James A. Risher    Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3812]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8708]
RIN 1545-AL98


Computation of Foreign Taxes Deemed Paid Under Section 902 
Pursuant to a Pooling Mechanism for Undistributed Earnings and Foreign 
Taxes; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final income tax 
regulations which were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
January 7, 1997 (62 FR 923) relating to the computation of foreign 
taxes deemed paid under section 902.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caren S. Shein, (202) 622-3850 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are 
under section 902 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain an error which may 
prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 8708), 
which are the subject of FR Doc. 97-153, is corrected as follows:


Sec. 1.902-3  [Corrected]

    On page 940, column 3, Sec. 1.902-3(l), the sixth line from the 
bottom of the paragraph, the language ``See Sec. 1.902-1(a)(13)(iii). 
For'' is corrected to read ``See Sec. 1.902-1 (a)(13)(i). For''.
Michael L. Slaughter,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 97-3812 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Louis BUTLER.

No. 61529.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Louis Butler, applying for supervisory writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ denied in part, granted in part.

No error as to ruling on preliminary examination. Bond reduced to $50,000.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7353 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7353

 To provide that a project eligible for reimbursement under the Secure 
    and Trusted Communications Act of 2019 shall not constitute an 
undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, or a 
   major Federal action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the 
   National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

 Mr. Guthrie introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that a project eligible for reimbursement under the Secure 
    and Trusted Communications Act of 2019 shall not constitute an 
undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, or a 
   major Federal action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the 
   National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Timely Replacement Under Secure and 
Trusted for Early and Dependable Broadband Networks Act'' or the 
``TRUSTED Broadband Networks Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF NEPA AND NHPA TO COVERED EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES.

    (a) Covered Project Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered 
project'' means a project for which the Commission approves a 
reimbursement under section 4 of the Secure and Trusted Communications 
Networks Act of 2019 (47 U.S.C. 1603).
    (b) NEPA Categorical Exclusion.--
            (1) In general.--A covered project shall be categorically 
        excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental 
        assessment or an environmental impact statement under section 
        102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
        4332).
            (2) Relation to extraordinary circumstances procedures.--
        The use of the categorical exclusion under paragraph (1) shall 
        not be considered to include extraordinary circumstances under 
        section 220.6 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
        section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
        successor to such regulations).
    (c) National Historic Preservation Act Exemption.--A covered 
project shall not be considered an undertaking under section 300320 of 
title 54, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
June 10, 2015

Mr. Gary Kenneth Kessel

413 South Main Street #104 Memphis, TN 38103

Dear Mr. Kessel:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 14, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1652), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Jessie L. MERCHANT, Appellant, v. M. L. GROSS et al., Appellees.

No. P-148.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7088 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 11, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, Georgia, as 

the ‘‘Senator Jack Hill Post Office Building’’. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 7088 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SENATOR JACK HILL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 111 James Street in Reidsville, 

4 Georgia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Senator 

5 Jack Hill Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Senator Jack Hill 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7039 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

210 North Missouri Avenue in Lakeland, Florida, as the ‘‘Officer Paul 

Dunn Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2020 

Mr. SPANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 210 North Missouri Avenue in Lakeland, Florida, as the ‘‘Officer Paul Dunn Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OFFICER PAUL DUNN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 210 North Missouri Avenue in 

6 Lakeland, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Officer Paul Dunn Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7039 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Officer Paul Dunn 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40372 Conference Calendar

BERNARD VINCENT MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CV-2-MAC-WCR

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bernard Vincent Montgomery, federal inmate #53653-146, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Montgomery asserts that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the manner in which his sentence was being executed and that the district court erred by construing the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that the application of the Sentencing Guidelines in the determination of his sentence constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-40372 -2- Section 2255, 28 U.S.C., is used to collaterally attack a federal conviction and sentence based on errors that occurred at trial or sentencing. Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., is used generally to challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830
. Montgomery’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the use of the Sentencing Guidelines, an alleged error that occurred at sentencing, and was construed properly under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830
. The district court did not err in concluding that Montgomery’s petition did not meet the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause. See Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830 -31. Montgomery has not shown that his claims were “‘based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense .’” Id. at 830 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7375 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise rules to exclude 

business development companies from certain ‘‘Acquired Fund fees and 

expenses’’ reporting, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. SHERMAN (for himself and Mr. STIVERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise 

rules to exclude business development companies from 

certain ‘‘Acquired Fund fees and expenses’’ reporting, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Access to Small Busi5 ness Investor Capital Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7375 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUDING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES 

2 FROM CERTAIN ‘‘ACQUIRED FUND FEES AND 

3 EXPENSES’’ REPORTING. 

4 (a) REVISION TO RULES.—Not later than the end of 

5 the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 

6 this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall 

7 revise any rule of the Commission relating to investment 

8 company registration statements to specify that, when cal9 culating the fees and expenses of an Acquired Fund, the 

10 term ‘‘Acquired Fund’’ does not include a business devel11 opment company. 

12 (b) FAILURE TO ISSUE RULES.—If the Commission 

13 does not make the revisions required under subsection (a) 

14 before the end of the 2-year period described in subsection 

15 (a), any reference to an Acquired Fund in a rule of the 

16 Commission relating to investment company registration 

17 statements (including in any item in or instruction to 

18 Forms N–1A, –2, –3, –4, and –6) shall, when used in the 

19 context of calculating the fees and expenses of an Acquired 

20 Fund, be deemed to not include a business development 

21 company. 

22 (c) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEFINED.— 

23 In this section, the term ‘‘business development company’’ 

24 has the meaning given that term under section 2(a) of 

25 the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a– 

26 2(a)). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7375 IH

1 (d) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Any reference in 

2 this section to— 

3 (1) a form means such form and any successor 

4 form; and 

5 (2) the terms ‘‘Acquired Fund Fees and Ex6 penses’’ and ‘‘Acquired Fund’’ defined or otherwise 

7 used in such a form shall mean any successor terms 

8 or provisions adopted by the Securities and Ex9 change Commission. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7390 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to add to matters covered by 

counseling in the Transition Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2020 

Miss RICE of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to add to matters 

covered by counseling in the Transition Assistance Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COUNSELING IN THE TRANSITION ASSISTANCE 

4 PROGRAM REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT, 

5 SEXUAL OR GENDER HARASSMENT, AND INTI6 MATE PARTNER VIOLENCE. 

7 Section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new para9 graph: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7390 IH

1 ‘‘(20) Information concerning health care (in2 cluding mental health care) furnished by the Sec3 retary of Veterans Affairs to veterans and members 

4 of the Armed Forces who have survived sexual as5 sault, sexual or gender harassment, or intimate part6 ner violence.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 12.1


                               Dean Foods Company
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (In Millions)



                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                               August 26, 2001
                                                            ------------------
Income before taxes                                             $         20.8
                                                                --------------

Fixed charges:
     Interest expense                                                     16.6
     Portion of rentals (33%)                                              4.6
                                                                --------------

     Total fixed charges                                                  21.2
                                                                --------------

Earnings before taxes and  fixed charges                        $         42.0
                                                                ==============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                         2.0
                                                                ==============
#### Ethel L. FISCHER, Administratrix of the Estate of Bernard S. Fischer, Deceased, Appellant, v. Irene H. FISCHER, Administratrix Ad Litem of the Estate of Sidney Fischer, Deceased, Louis Fischer and Edward Fischer d/b/a Fischer’s Seafood, Fischer’s Outlet and The Surf, Appellees.

No. 69-213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 20, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1  Certification of Interim President,Principal Financial and Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Item 307 of Regulation S-K  I, Richard Banakus, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hydron Technologies, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2008;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  /s/: Richard Banakus Richard Banakus
 Interim President, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer  February 23, 2009
#### Thomas YORK et al., Appellants, v. EMPLOYER’S SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 72-52.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.