alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Jack Friedman, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive    Officer of Friedman Industries, Incorporated, a Texas    corporation, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Friedman Industries, Incorporated;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, result of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

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

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

          b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]

          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

          d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

          a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: February 14, 2005 /s/  JACK FRIEDMAN Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 130A/22 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 130A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5822 April 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 130A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5822 April 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 130A/01 | Extension of the period of validity of the lists of suitable candidates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2015/C 130A/01

Extension of the period of validity of the lists of suitable candidates

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Qualified Products List for Government Printing Papers

JCP Code O‐65 Compliant Xerographic Copy Paper                                                         

(30% Post‐consumer Fiber)

The brand names of xerographic copy papers listed below have been tested by U. S. Government Publishing

Office (GPO) and were determined to be in compliance with requirements of the JCP Paper Standards.  

Questions can be emailed to: qcimd@gpo.gov.

Brand Name 20# White     Manufacturer/Supplier

Aspen 30         Boise Paper

Great White 30         International Paper

Earth Choice 30         Domtar

Spectrum Recycled       Georgia‐Pacific

Eagle Office 30         American Eagle

Finch Copy 30         Finch Fine Paper

Husky Copy 30         Domtar

Brand Name 20# Colors     Manufacturer/Supplier

Domtar Colors         Domtar

Aspen 30         Boise Paper

Hammermill Fore Colors    International Paper

This information is current as of October 2018.
# L_2014111EN.01008401.xml

| 15.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 111/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 111/84

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2014/214/CFSP

of 14 April 2014

amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 April 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 April 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1).

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2013/184/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 30 April 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2013/184/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 30 April 2015.

| (3) | Decision 2013/184/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2013/184/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2013/184/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

Article 3 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 3

This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2015. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 14 April 2014.

For the Council

The President

C. ASHTON

---

(1)  Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP of 22 April 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma and repealing Decision 2010/232/CFSP (OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75).

1

---
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Nathaniel PRESSLEY, Appellee.

No. 69-892.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 28, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

L. E. Thomas, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal brought by the state under authority of Rule 6.3, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., and § 924.071, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., from a pretrial order which granted defendant Nathaniel Pressley’s motion to suppress the evidence of his alleged confession. The alleged confession, evi*735dence of which was suppressed, was testified to have been orally given to police officers upon interrogation. It was testified that the defendant, a fifteen year old boy, was taken to the police station where after having been advised of his constitutional rights he confessed to the crime of robbery. The officers did not reduce the confession to writing although the facilities to do so were available. In addition there was a discrepancy in the testimony of the two officers to the length of time the boy was under interrogation. From the record it appears that the trial judge had serious doubts as to credibility of the officers’ testimony and that he felt the confession should have been reduced to writing.

The purpose of a motion to suppress a confession is to determine whether the confession offered is so clearly tainted with illegality that it may not be offered to the finder of fact.1 The motion does not reach the question of credibility of the confession2 or of the witnesses to the confession.3 An *oral*confession is admissible if properly established by competent testimony.4 We hold therefore that the court erred in suppressing the evidence of the confession in the present instance. This holding is without prejudice to the right of the defendant-appellee to raise any and all objections to the admissibility of the confession, because the order reversed is a nullity.-5

The order suppressing the evidence of the oral confession is reversed and the cause remanded.

1

. See Annot. Admissibility of Pretrial Confession in a Criminal Case—1 L.Ed. 2d 1735; 4 L.Ed.2d 1833; 12 L.Ed.2d 1340; 16 D.Ed.2d 1294; 22 L.Ed.2d 872. The usual legal point in issue is the vol-untariness of the purported confession. The same issue is also the usual one raised during trial. See, e. g., Bates v. State, 78 Fla. 672, 84 So. 373 (1919).

2

. This is an issue for the jury. Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 So. 836 (1902) ; cases cited at 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 971 (12th ed. 1955) ; and see Walker v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 707, 708.

3

. Cf. case cited at 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 260, and 3 Wharton § 971.

4

. Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582, 586 (1930).

5

. See Rosenkrantz v. Hall, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 518.
#### NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Charles Samuel MOYER, an incompetent, by and through William Trickel, Jr., and Eaton, Yale and Towne, Inc., a foreign corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 1, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Roger A. Barker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# Official Journal L 24/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 24 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6330 January 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 24

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6330 January 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/125 of 29 January 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to relevant appropriately diversified indices in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/126 of 29 January 2020 fixing the maximum amount of aid for private storage of olive oil within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1882 | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/125 of 29 January 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to relevant appropriately diversified indices in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  )

1

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/126 of 29 January 2020 fixing the maximum amount of aid for private storage of olive oil within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1882

5

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Opinion issued March 26, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00066-CV

NO. 01-23-00067-CV

NO. 01-23-00068-CV

———————————

BRENETTA NANEKE SHERMAN, Appellant

V.

SOLVAY USA, INC., RHONE-POULENCE INC., VENCOREX US, INC.,

AND ALFREDO CELAYA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 112783-CV, 112783-CV-B, 112783-CV-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Brenetta Naneke Sherman, proceeding pro se, failed to file a brief. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), 38.8(a). This Court previously granted Appellant three 
2

prior extensions to file her brief, but each time Appellant failed to file her brief 

seeking additional extensions instead. In our order granting Appellant’s third 

request for an extension, we informed Appellant we were granting one last extension 

for her to file her appellate brief by January 12, 2024, and that failure to file her brief 

could result in dismissal of her appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). 

Instead of filing her brief by the due date, Appellant filed a letter on January 11, 

2024 and another on March 7, 2024, requesting this Court to “look into this case,” 

“investigate this matter,” and “subpoena the original documents,” which we construe 

as motions for a fourth extension. 

We deny Appellant’s motions and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All other pending motions are denied 

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.
#### Grace Beverly TOBIS, Appellant, v. Alvin T. TOBIS, Appellee.

No. 40943.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.

CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, J., dissent.
#### Floyd GRAINGER, Appellant, v. CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK OF TAMPA, a national banking corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-645.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 16, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2020129EN.01001302.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/13

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-108/20)

(2020/C 129/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

---
#### M. A. STEINHARDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 8, 1967.

Rehearing. Denied Jan. 5, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                     EXHIBIT  11


                            GENERAL HOST CORPORATION

             ADDITIONAL EARNINGS PER SHARE INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)

                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Twelve Weeks Ended      Twenty-Eight Weeks Ended
                                        -----------------------   ------------------------
                                        August 10,   August 11,     August 10,  August 11,   
                                           1997        1996           1997        1996   
                                        ----------   ----------     ---------- ----------
<S>                                    <C>          <C>            <C>         <C>              
Earnings (loss) for full dilution:
  Net income (loss)                     $  (2,277)  $     657       $   3,325   $   3,451
  Add interest on 8% Convertible
    Debentures, net of tax effect           1,200       1,117           2,800       2,800
                                        ---------   ---------       ---------   ---------
  Income (loss), as adjusted            $  (1,077)  $   1,774       $   6,125   $   6,251
                                        =========   =========       =========   =========


Shares used for calculating primary
  earnings per share                       24,414      24,414          24,414      24,414
  Additional shares resulting from
    assumed conversion of 8% Convertible
      Debentures                            7,611       7,611           7,611       7,611
  Additional shares resulting from
    assumed exercise of stock options         162           0             103           0
                                        ---------   ---------       ---------   ---------
                                           32,187      32,025          32,128      32,025
                                        =========   =========       =========   =========

Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share $    (.03)1 $     .06 1     $     .19 1 $     .20 1
                                        =========   =========       =========   =========  
</TABLE>



1  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
   (b)(11) although it is contrary to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion 15 because it
   produces an anti-dilutive result.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 31157)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Neural Control of Mobility in Aging.                    

*Date:*                         July 25, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C223, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704,                         *MIKHAILI@MAIL.NIH.GOV*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 28, 2018.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-14315 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 21

            Socrates  Technologies Corporation and Subsidiaries

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


The following lists all subsidiaries of Socrates Technologies Corporation as 
required by Exhibit 21.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Name                               State/Country of Incorporation
-----------------------------------      --------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>

1. MVS Modular Vision Systems, Inc.      Quebec, Canada

2. JMR Distributors, Inc.                Virginia
 
3. Socrates Technologies, Inc.           Maryland

4. Expert, Inc.                          New York

5. Technet Computer Services, Inc.       Virginia
</TABLE>
#### James KUYKENDALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-517.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 6, 1971.

Virgil Q. Mayo, Public Defender, and Raymond L. Syfrett, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Stunson v. State (Fla.App.1969) 228 So.2d 294.

CARROLL, DONALD K., A. C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.