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

**Certifications**

 

I, Paul J.B. Murphy, III, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of New World Restaurant Group,Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)            Designedsuch disclosure 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)                                  Evaluatedthe effectiveness 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)            Disclosedin 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)            Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Dated:   August 9, 2005 | By: /s/ PAUL J.B. MURPHY, III |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         |                          | Paul J.B. Murphy, III |
|                         |                          | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### McDEVITT & STREET COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARTIN, JOHNSON & WALLS, INC., a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 75-1950.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 4, 1978.

*1316Elmo R. Hoffman of Hoffman, Hendry, Parker & Smith, Orlando, for appellant.

Linton S. Waterhouse, Orlando, for appel-lee-Martin, Johnson & Walls, Inc.

Janis M. Halker, Orlando, Lippincott & Halker, Winter Park, and Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellee-Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland.

PER CURIAM.

Two lawsuits involving the same parties and arising out of the same transaction were consolidated for trial. The plaintiff in one of the lawsuits was a general contractor who was suing a subcontractor and the subcontractor’s surety for the alleged breach of two subcontracts and for the alleged wrongful filing of a mechanic’s lien by the subcontractor. The subcontractor counterclaimed, alleging that the contractor had breached the subcontracts, and sought enforcement of its claim. In the other lawsuit the subcontractor sued the contractor, seeking to recover possession of a trailer and other personal property that had been left at the construction site and for damages, alleging that its property had been wrongfully detained by the contractor. The consolidated cases were tried by jury and verdicts were returned in favor of the subcontractor and against the contractor.

In the breach of contract action we find no reversible error. However, the replevin action must be reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages. Although the subcontractor would be entitled to some award for the wrongful detention of its property, there was no competent evidence to support the $8,325 award by the jury.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and remanded for a new trial in the replevin action on the issue of damages.

ALDERMAN, C. J., CROSS, J., and DURANT, N. JOSEPH, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
#### William C. FREIMUTH, Appellant, v. Theresa FREIMUTH, Appellee.

No. 72-487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., of McGee & Merritt, Brooksville, for appellant.

No appearance by appellee.

*390PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the brief and record in this cause, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment which comes to this court clothed with presumption of correctness is hereby affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-TPS.13 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2011 2010 Census Advance Group Quarters Summary File The Census Bureau, in response to federal and state officials as well as other data users, is providing an early version of table P42 from the 2010 Census Summary File 1, showing population counts for seven types of group quarters. The institutionalized group quarters categories include correctional facilities for adults, juvenile facilities, nursing facilities/skilled-nursing facilities and other institutional facilities; while the noninstitutionalized group quarters categories include college/university student housing, military quarters and other noninstitutional facilities. Data are shown for states, counties, census tracts and blocks. This early release will be useful to data users in the redistricting community who must follow state legislation regarding group quarters populations in redrawing boundaries. This table will only be available via the FTP site and is identical to table P42 in Summary File 1 to be released this summer. At that time, characteristics of the group quarters population will also be available. More information about the definitions of the group quarters types and how to use the summary file can be found in the documentation accompanying the data on the FTP site and at 
<https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/gqsf.pdf> [PDF]. For more information about census redistricting data, visit <https://www.census.gov/rdo/data>. Internet address: <http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/02-Advance_Group_Quarters>. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
 
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: County Clerk January 22 , 2015

County: Brazoria (Criminal )

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Ple ase acknowledge the re ceipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return

the original to this court.

14

- 12

- 00642

- CR Kenneth Lee Douds v The State of Texas 180270

Defendant ’ s Exhibit 2, a DVD

Received by: ________________________________________

Receiv ed on: ________________________________________
II 

Calendar No. 514 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1946 

[Report No. 113–227] 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to modify the 

authorization of appropriations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. SCHATZ, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. MERKLEY) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported by Ms. LANDRIEU, with an amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 

to modify the authorization of appropriations. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1946 RS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE RECLAMATION SAFETY 

2 OF DAMS ACT OF 1978. 

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

4 5 of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 

5 U.S.C. 509) is amended in the first sentence by striking 

6 ‘‘necessary and, effective’’ and all that follows through 

7 ‘‘herein’’ and inserting ‘‘necessary’’. 

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 5 

9 of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 

10 509) is amended— 

11 (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and, effec12 tive October 1, 2014, not to exceed an additional 

13 $1,10,000,000 (October 1, 2014 price levels)’’ before ‘‘, 

14 plus or minus’’; 

15 (2) in the proviso— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘$1,250,000’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘$20,000,000’’; and 

18 (B) by striking ‘‘Congress’’ and inserting 

19 ‘‘Committee on Natural Resources of the House 

20 of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 

21 and Natural Resources of the Senate’’; and 

22 (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘For 

23 modification expenditures between $1,800,000 and 

24 $20,000,000 (October 1, 2013 price levels), the Sec25 retary of the Interior shall, at least 30 days before the 

26 date on which the funds are expended, submit written 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1946 RS

1 notice of the expenditures to the Committee on Nat2 ural Resources of the House of Representatives and 

3 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 

4 the Senate that provides a summary of the project, 

5 the cost of the project, and any alternatives that were 

6 considered.’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 4(c) of the 

8 Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 

9 508(c)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) 

10 by striking ‘‘additional’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 514 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1946 

[Report No. 113–227] 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 

1978 to modify the authorization of appropriations. 

JULY 31, 2014 

Reported with an amendment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013231EN.01000301.xml

| 9.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 August 2013

2013/C 231/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3360 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4574 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6828 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2307 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8840 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,816 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 298,91 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7028 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2066 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4540 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5708 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4726 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3909 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3626 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6747 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6848 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 486,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,1930 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1771 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5038 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 743,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3373 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,193 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,0086 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,750 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0760 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9438 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,3110 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3360

JPY

Japanese yen

128,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4574

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86200

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6828

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2307

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8840

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,816

HUF

Hungarian forint

298,91

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7028

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2066

RON

Romanian leu

4,4540

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5708

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4726

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3909

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3626

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6747

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6848

KRW

South Korean won

1 486,97

ZAR

South African rand

13,1930

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1771

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5038

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 743,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3373

PHP

Philippine peso

58,193

RUB

Russian rouble

44,0086

THB

Thai baht

41,750

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0760

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9438

INR

Indian rupee

81,3110

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2885 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2885

 To amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to clarify certain 
                            rules of origin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 5, 1993

 Mr. Gibbons introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to clarify certain 
                            rules of origin.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN RUM.

    Section 213(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 
U.S.C. 2703(a)) is amended by inserting the following new paragraph 
after paragraph (5):
    ``(6) Rum, provided for in subheading 2208.40 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States, which meets the requirements of 
paragraph (1)(B) shall be treated as originating in the territory of 
the United States for the purposes of the United States-Canada Free-
Trade Agreement when used in the production or processing of articles 
in Canada.''.

                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-3230

_____________________________

SYNOVUS TRUST COMPANY, as 

Trustee of The Teddie Clay a/k/a 

Teddy Clay Revocable Trust 

dated August 18, 2014,

Appellant,

v.

FINNA ANN CLAY, JACKIE DIANE 

CLAY and FINNA ANN CLAY as 

Trustee of the Janie Mae Clay 

Special Needs Trust dated 

August 18, 2014,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

September 15, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Brian W. Hoffman and Nathan R. Jurgensen, Carver, Darden, 

Koretzky, Tessier, Finn Blossman & Areaux, LLC, Pensacola, for 

Appellant.

Shiraz A. Hosein, Anchors Smith Grimsley, PLC, Fort Walton 

Beach, for Appellees.
#### Ronald Charles AMSLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-825.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 12, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; John G. Ferris, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### Rowena GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Filed 1/15/14 City of Lake Forest v. Lake Forest Wellness Center etc. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CITY OF LA KE FOREST, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAKE FOREST WELLNESS CENTER AND COLLECTIVE et al., Defendants and Appellants. G043817 (consol. w ith G043867) (Super. Ct . No. 30-2009-00298887)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed. Howard|Nassiri, Vincent D. Howard, Damian J. Nassiri, Naveen Madala;

and Donna Bader for Defe ndants and Appellants. Best Best & Krieger, Jeffrey V. Dunn and Lee Ann Meyer for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 Lake Forest Wellness Center and Co llective contends local bans against medical marijuana dispensaries are preempted because the Legislature made clear its policy determination in Health and Safety Code section 113 62.775 that the cultivation of marijuana for sick Californians by qualified coop erative or collective associations is not a nuisance, and therefore, what th e Legislature has authorized, the City of Lake Forest (the city) may not ban. We agreed in an unpub lished opinion, and be cause the trial court granted the city’s injunction requ est solely on the basis of th e city’s dispensary ban, we reversed the preliminary injunction and rema nded the matter for further proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the city’s pe tition for review and later concluded in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient s Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 ( Inland Empire ) that local governments may ban medical marijuana dispensaries without triggering preempti on by the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5) or Califor nia’s Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et seq.). The high court transferred th is case back to us to consider in light of Inland Empire , and because that decision is controlling authority ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455), we affirm the preliminary injunction. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

FYBEL, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4051 PHILLIP BARRY MCDANIELS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-96-166-BO) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 11, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Peter W. Kellen, Assistant United States Attorney, Amy Melissa Guy, Third Year Law Student, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Phillip Barry McDaniels pled guilty to escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994), and r eceived a sentence of 37 months imprisonment consecutive to the 50-month sentence he was then serving in a minimum security facility. McDaniels contends on appeal that the district court erred in finding that the escape was a crime of violence and sentencing him as a career offender. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 4B1.1 (Nov. 1996). We affirm. McDaniels walked away from his work detail at a golf course at the Federal Correctional Institution at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. He hitchhiked to South Carolina where he was arrested without incident two days later. He argues that the escape was not a crime of violence. McDaniels acknowledges our holding in United States v. Dickerson , 77 F.3d 774, 777 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3259 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996)(No. 95-9207), that "the crime of felony attempted escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a), in the abstract, involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another, and thus, constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the Career Offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, seeUSSG § 4B1.1." Our decision in Dickerson encompasses any escape or attempted escape, including escape from a minimum security facility. Williams contends that Dickerson was wrongly decided; however, as he recognizes, a panel cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel in this circuit. See Brubaker v. City of Richmond , 943 F.2d 1363, 1381-82 (4th Cir. 1991).The sentence is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
June 4, 2013

Memo to : EPA Docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 0268)

Subject : Summary of May 2013 presentations given at the Annual National Confere nce on Radiat ion Control regarding the update to the Protective Action Guides (PAGs)
Manual

On May 20, 2013, EPA staff gave two presentations at the Annual National Conference on Radiation Control at the request of the conference organizers. A three

- hour workshop described all aspects of the new proposal for public comment: “PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents” and hig hlighted the differences between the current (1992) and newly proposed PAG Manuals and answered questions. A second, short presentation focused only on the differences in the new proposal and highlighted the questions in the Federal Register Notice of Avai lability for Review and Comment. Participants were primarily staff from federal and state radiation programs.