alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Stephen F. Koziar, certify that:



Date:
August 5, 2003

| |  |  | /s/STEPHEN F. KOZIARStephen F. Koziar President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Caroline E. Muhlenkamp, certify that:



Date:
August 5, 2003

| |  |  | /s/CAROLINE E. MUHLENKAMPCaroline E. Muhlenkamp Interim Group Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
| |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James David HARDISON, Brian Donald Snyder, Appellees.

No. 69-453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 26, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.

C. J. Abernathy, of Jenkins, Abernathy & Dugan, St, Petersburg, and Joseph G. Don-ahey, Jr., of Mosley & Donahey, Clearwater, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; State v. Leveson, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 283; Gossett v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 836, and Giblin v. Coral Gables, Fla.1963, 149 So.2d 561.

LILES, A. C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael J. Quinn, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CardioGenesisCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this AnnualReport;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this Annual Report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis Annual Report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrantand we have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Annual Report isbeing prepared;
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and
(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
/s/ MICHAEL J. QUINN
#### Robert W. RANDALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-369.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA'')

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, 
and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given that a proposed consent 
decree in United States v. Jane Doe, as Executrix of the Estate of 
Edmund Barbera, et al., 96 Civ. 8563 (BSJ), was lodged on November 16, 
1997, with the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of New York. The Consent Decree addresses the hazardous waste 
contamination at the Port Refinery Superfund Site (the ``Site''), 
located in the Village of Rye Brook, Westchester County, New York. The 
Consent Decree requires two de minimis generators of hazardous 
substances transported to the Site to pay to the United States a total 
of $42,448.00.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Jane Doe, as Executrix of the Estate of Edmund 
Barbera, et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-1142A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 100 
Church Street, New York, New York, 10007 (contact Assistant United 
States Attorney Kathy S. Marks); the Region II Office of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York, 
10007-1866 (contact Assistant Regional Counsel Michael Mintzer); and at 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, 
D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may 
obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy 
please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount 
of $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) for the Consent Decree, 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-33824 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cascade Microtech, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Sipowicz,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge,:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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.

 

 
| /s/  Steven Sipowicz     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Steven  Sipowicz         |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| Cascade  Microtech, Inc. |
| March  15, 2006          |

 

This certification ismade solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any otherpurpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Cascade Microtech, Inc. and will be retained by Cascade Microtech, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Terry G. PARTA v. NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 3788.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1970.

Writ Refused April 20, 1970.

Krasnoff & Silvers, Sanford Krasnoff, J. Terrell Heath, New Orleans, for appellant.

Alvin J. Liska, City Atty., Beuker F. Amann, First Asst. City Atty., Maurice B. Friedman, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.

Before REDMANN, LeSUEUR, and SWIFT, JJ.

*575LeSUEUR, Judge.

As in LeBlanc v. New Orleans Police Department, 231 So.2d S68 on the docket of this court, this- case involves facts which are not disputed and which the Civil Service Commission for the City of New Orleans in No. 454-A found the appellant was illegally dismissed and should again be allowed to report for duty, if available.

The question of law presented in this case is exactly the same as in the LeBlanc case, and our holding in that case is adopted and applied in the present case.

Subsequent to the ruling of the Civil Service Commission a petition for authority to be substituted as party-plaintiff in this lawsuit was filed by Bernard K. Oppen-heim, attorney for/and Trustee in the matter of Charlene Grace Parta, wife of/and Terry George Parta, Bankrupts. An order was signed by T. M. Brahney III, the U. S. Referee in Bankruptcy, authorizing and directing Mr. Oppenheim to intervene in this proceeding. Mr. Oppenheim then moved this court to be recognized as a substituted party-plaintiff and an order was signed so substituting him on December 30, 1969.

For the foregoing reasons, the ruling of the Civil Service Commission for the City of New Orleans is amended to substitute Bernard K. Oppenheim, Trustee in the matter of Charlene Grace Parta, wife of/and Terry George Parta, Bankrupts, Nos. 69-1516 and 69-1517 In Bankruptcy, as party-plaintiff and, as amended, said ruling sustaining the appeal of Terry G. Parta and ordering his reinstament to duty at his former rank effective immediately, if available, and further ordering that he be reimbursed for his back wages of his base wage for a normal 40-hour work week, namely $515.00 per month through March 29, 1969, and effective March 30, 1969, $530.00 per month, less all monies received by appellant through employment and compensation for other work performed during his period of suspension and dismissal to date hereof, is affirmed; costs of this appeal are to be borne by appellant.

Amended and, as amended, affirmed.

REDMANN, Judge

(dissenting).

I dissent for the reasons assigned in my dissent in LeBlanc v. New Orleans Police Department, La.App., 231 So.2d 568.

REDMANN, J., is of the opinion the rehearing should be granted.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

** **

I,Pamela Holdren, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The DaytonPower and Light Company;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report 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;

 

c) Disclosed inthis 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

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 or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:       | November 5, 2004                               |
|-------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Signature:  | /s/ Pamela Holdren                             |   |
| Print Name: | Pamela Holdren                                 |
| Title:      | Treasurer and Interim  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Com m onwealth of Ma s sachuset t s Exec uti ve Offi ce o f Energy & Envi ro nm enta l Affa i rs 

# Department of Environmental Protection

Charles D . Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor One W i nter St r eet B oston, M A 02108 • 6 1 7 -292 -5 5 00

May 5 , 2015 Anne Arnold EPA Region I 5 Post Office Square - Suite 100 Boston , MA 021 09-3 912 Dear Ms. Arnold: Matthew A Beaton Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is hereby submitting amendments to 310 CMR 7.00: 

### Air Pollution Control and an accompanying narrative entitled " Massachusetts Stage II Vapor Recovery Program Discontinuation State Implementation Plan Revision" as formal revisions to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP). The amendments to 310 CMR 7 .00 require gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) to decommission their Stage II vapor recovery systems , consistent the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency ' s (EPA) May 2012 determination that onboard refueling vapor recovery systems (ORVR) systems are in widespread use nationwide . The amendments also require enhancement of Stage I vapor control systems and specify best management practices consistent with EPA's GDF National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) . The narrative demonstrates , using EPA ' s methodology , that the emissions reductions associated with the MassDEP ' s Stage II program in 2013 are de minimis (5.12% ofrefueling emissions) and that in 2015 continued operation of a Stage II program in Massachusetts would cause excess refueling emissions in the State. A public notice announcing a comment period and six public hearings on the proposed regulatory amendments and narrative was widely published on February 10, 2014 and the comment period ran until March 31 , 20 14 . The final regulations took effect on January 2 , 2015. This information is available in alternate format . Call Mic h elle Waters-Ekanem, Dive rsity Di rect or, at 617 -292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Se rvice 1-800-439 -2370 MassDEP Website : www rnass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper

### The following support documents are included in this submittal: • A copy ofthe final SIP revision narrative. Note that MassDEP used actual gasoline use in 2013 (as reported by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue) versus projected 2013 use in the draft narrative. In addition, various minor edits were made to the fina:l narrative; • A copy ofthe Notice of Public Hearing and the Secretary ofthe Commonwealth ' s Regulations filing form ; • A copy ofthe hearing officers ' certification ofpublic hearings. Note that the Lenox public hearing was not held because nobo dy came to the hearing; and • A copy ofthe final amended regulations, which were modified in response to public comments , as described in the included Response to Comments document. If you have any questions about this submittal , please contact Glenn Keith at 617-292-5874. Sincerely ,
../ Christine Kirby , Director Air and Climate Programs Bureau of Air and Waste

cc : Nancy Seidman, Assistant Commissioner
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 07-60932

Summary Calendar

_____________________

IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL E. McDUFFIE,

Debtor

MICHAEL E. McDUFFIE,

Appellant

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:07-CV-1024)

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Debtor-Appellant Michael E. McDuffie appeals the judgment of the

district court dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court. We review

the district court’s dismissal of McDuffie’s appeal in this case for abuse of

discretion, that dismissal being grounded in several acts of delay and

perceived lack of good faith on the part of the Debtor-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

As both parties to this appeal have suggested that oral argument is not

warranted, we decide it on the basis of arguments presented in their briefs

and the contents of the record on appeal. Having now carefully reviewed the

law as presented by the parties and set forth in the rulings of the bankruptcy

court and the district court, as applied to the facts reflected in the record on

appeal, we are convinced that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing McDuffie’s appeal. Largely on the basis of the reasons stated by

the district court, we affirm its dismissal of the subject appeal.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-153474, No. 333-130007, No. 333-10178, and No. 333-31813 on Form S-8 and No. 333-129242, No. 333-125012, No. 333-117768, andNo. 333-95235 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 31, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Wet Seal, Inc. and the effectiveness of The Wet Seal, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. for the year ended January 30, 2010. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, CA 

March 31, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          24,106
<SECURITIES>                                    27,957
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                       280
<INVENTORY>                                      2,464
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,881
<PP&E>                                           1,374
<DEPRECIATION>                                     468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,339
<OTHER-SE>                                         498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,706
<SALES>                                          9,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,759
<CGS>                                            3,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             196,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,156)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-6-16-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

January 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 31, 1996, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 5A, 
with a proposed effective date of January 1, 1997.
    National states that under Article II, Section 1, of the approved 
settlement approved in Docket Nos. 94-367-000, et al., National is 
required to recalculate semi-annually the maximum Interruptible 
Gathering (IG) rate to be effective on July 1 and January 1. The 
recalculation produced an IG rate of 11 cents per dth.
    In addition, pursuant to Article I, Section 4, National is required 
to redetermine quarterly the Amortization Surcharge to reflect 
revisions in the Plant to be Amortized, interest and associated taxes, 
and a change in the determinants. The recalculation produced an 
Amortization Surcharge of 13.77 cents per dth.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed in accordance with 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. 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-375 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Linda TUGGLE (Daumer) v. Paul BARRETT, Sheriff of Warren County, Mississippi.

No. 51124.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1978.

Prewitt & Prewitt, John W. Prewitt, Vicksburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

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

AFFIRMED.