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



Certification



I, Stephen E. Carley, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the Company);



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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company 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 Company, 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
Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and



5. The Companys other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                      |  |  |  |                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 16, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Stephen E.
Carley   
|                      |  |  |  | Stephen E. Carley President
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. 09-50609

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHNNY JAY LACY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:09-CR-279-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny Jay Lacy appeals the sentence imposed after he admitted violating

conditions of his four-year term of supervised release. The district court

sentenced Lacy to 30 months of imprisonment and to a ten-year term of

supervised release. Lacy argues that the 30-month term of imprisonment is

unreasonable and greater than necessary to effectuate the goals of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), because his supervised release violations were related to personal

drug use and addiction, and not his original offense of drug trafficking, and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 14, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-50609 Document: 00511111986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2010
No. 09-50609

2

because his stable work history and devotion to the financial support of his

family make it less likely that he would commit further crimes or pose a danger

to the public. Lacy argues that the ten-year term of supervised release was

excessive because he had previously conformed to most conditions of supervised

release and because his only violations were related to his personal use of drugs,

which could be addressed during imprisonment and/or during a shorter term of

supervised release. 

Lacy’s sentence was authorized by law and thus is not unreasonable or

plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th

Cir. 2005). The 30-month term of imprisonment did not exceed the statutory

maximum of three years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Likewise, Lacy’s ten-year

term of supervised release was authorized by statute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)

(employing same language after 2002 amendment as subsection (b)(1)(C) except

for a higher minimum term); see United States v. Jackson, 559 F.3d 368, 370-71

(5th Cir. 2009) (holding that a 2002 amendment to the Controlled Substances

Act makes clear that supervised release for a conviction under § 841(b)(1)(C) can

be for a life term). 

Lacy concedes that his argument that the court’s imposition of a ten-year

term of supervised release violates the Double Jeopardy Clause is foreclosed by

Jackson.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 09-50609 Document: 00511111986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2010
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8096]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7837]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Nicolai Fechin''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Nicolai Fechin,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Russian Art, 
Minneapolis, Minnesota, from on or about August 18, 2012, until on or 
about January 13, 2013, the Frye Art Museum, Seattle, Washington, from 
on or about February 2, 2013, until on or about April 7, 2013, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

     Dated: March 28, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-8096 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated March 6, 2001, included in this Form 10-K, into Ramtron
International Corporation's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos.
333-12265 and 333-33554 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement File Nos.
33-80411, 333-19119, 333-47615, 333-87107, 333-95209 and 333-42106 on
Form S-3.


/S/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Denver, Colorado,
  March 30, 2001

                                    Page-1
<PAGE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF A. G. AND K. G., 

CHILDREN,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00162-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2020DCM4548)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Muriel Montrose’s request for an extension of time within which to 

file the Reporter’s Record until October 11, 2021. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED BY 

THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Muriel Montrose, Official Court Reporter for the 65th

Associate Court for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record and forward the same 

to this Court on or before October 11, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.) 

Marion, C.J. (Ret.), sitting by assignment
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN E. BARNHOUSE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HAROLD CLARK; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35602

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05527-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Former Washington state prisoner John E. Barnhouse appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 

FILED

JUL 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35602

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust and for clear error its factual

determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action with prejudice because

Barnhouse did not timely exhaust his prison grievance remedies. See Woodford v.

Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a

timely manner consistent with prison policies). 

Barnhouse’s remaining contentions, including those that this court rejected

in a prior appeal, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patrick Bratton, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

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

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 12, 2009



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick Bratton    
|    |  | Patrick Bratton        
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Kenneth B. Ray, Petitioner, against Irving Subway Grating Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

December 18, 1958.

*William T. Griffin*and *Herbert Burstein*for petitioner.

*Whitman, Ransom é Coulson*for respondents.

*1089Mabio Pittoni, J.

The petitioner applies for an injunction *pendente lite*to restrain the holding of a special meeting of the stockholders of the corporation.

The petition must be denied.

First, the courts are reluctant to interfere by injunction with the internal affairs of corporations and, second, injunctive relief is a harsh remedy that should be granted only where the applicant has established a clear right to such a remedy and has shown irremedial harm if the injunction is denied. The petitioner has failed to show these requisites. *(La Vin*v. *La Vin,*36 N Y S 2d 235 [Froessel, J.]; see, also, *Matter of La Vin,*37 N Y S 2d 161 [Froessel, J.]; *Salerno*v. *J. S. Painting Corp.,*12 Misc 2d 856.)

If an illegal or improper act on the part of the respondents does take place they act at their peril. In any event, the petitioner has other remedies under our laws. For example, there is section 25 of the General Corporation Law, a suit for wasted assets, a stockholder’s derivative action, and others not necessary to mention at this time.

Furthermore, no authority for the present proceeding has been found by the court or cited by the petitioner. In this respect the valid commencement of an action is an indispensable requisite to the granting of a temporary injunction. *(Evans*v. *Evans,*273 App. Div. 895 [2d Dept.]; Civ. Prac. Act, § 877.) The fact that an action may have been commenced in another jurisdiction does not satisfy the above requirement. (See *Barnes*v. *Andrews,*208 App. Div. 856.)

The petition is therefore denied. Submit order.
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Suzuki, Debra

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 6:07 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

From: Suzuki, Debra  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:06 PM

To: 'scla461@ecy.wa.gov'; Uri Papish; 'sposner@utc.wa.gov'

Cc: Kelly, Kate; Dave Bray; Hunt, Jeff; 'Pritchett, Nancy (ECY)'; Caudill, Anya (ECY); 'Stacey Callaway

(cals461@ECY.WA.GOV)'

Subject: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action

Hi Stu, Uri and Stephen. This message is a follow-up to my phone calls today notifying you about 

the final action the EPA Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution 

rules that apply to sources at all times, including when the source is operating during periods of 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM). 

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians 

concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, 

specifically how those emissions are treated in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the 

EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has revised and clarified its policy 

concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including Washington, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect 

public health and ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM 

Policy. Ecology, SWCAA and EFSEC will have 18 months to submit revisions of your plan to EPA. 

Your revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016. 

As part of our notification about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the 

EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the 

details on the final action, including the specific SIP provisions your agency needs to address, we 

have posted a pre-publication version of the action on our website 

at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html. 

The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as 

possible. If you or your staff have questions, please feel free to contact me at 206-553-0985 or 

Dave Bray at 206-553-4253. 

Thank you, 

Debra Suzuki 

EPA Region 10 

Air Planning Unit Manager
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 221 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 221

  To authorize testimony and document production in In the Matter of 
               Pamela A. Carter v. HealthSource Saginaw.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony and document production in In the Matter of 
               Pamela A. Carter v. HealthSource Saginaw.

Whereas, in the case of In the Matter of Pamela A. Carter v. HealthSource 
        Saginaw, No. 1199-3828, pending in the Michigan Department of Consumer 
        and Industry Services, testimony has been requested from Mary 
        Washington, an employee in Senator Carl Levin's Saginaw, Michigan 
        office;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the administrative or judicial process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privilege of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Mary Washington, and any other employee of the 
Senate from whom testimony or document production may be required, is 
authorized to testify and produce documents in the case of In the 
Matter of Pamela A. Carter v. HealthSource Saginaw, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
10.2





CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION (IDENTIFIED BY **) HAS BEEN OMITTED BASED


UPON
A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND HAS BEEN SEPARATELY FILED


WITH
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION





February
28, 2009





Neal
Simco


VP
National Accounts


Tyson
Foods


2200 Don
Tyson Parkway


Springdale,
AR 72762





Dear
Neal:





As
discussed and agreed, contingent on full approval by EPL Quality Assurance,
Tyson Foods will supply to the El Pollo Loco systemneeds for the products shown below:





A minimum
of ** pounds annually of whole birds, EPL Specification **.  Pricing
will be ** FOB; **  per pound delivered to MBM, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
and ** per pound delivered to MBM, Pleasanton, CA.





As part
of this Purchase Agreement, Supplier warrants that the prices for the items
identified herein are not higher than those currently extended to any other
customer for the same or like items in equal or less quantities. If Supplier
reduces its price for such items to any other customer during the term of this
Purchase Agreement, Supplier agrees to correspondingly reduce the price quoted
herein.





El Pollo
Loco’s decision to enter into this Purchase Agreement is independent of any
support your firm may or may not choose to provide to the El Pollo Loco
system.





This
Purchase Agreement is subject to and incorporates the General Terms and
Conditions of Supply (“T/C”) executed by the parties hereto and currently on
file with El Pollo Loco, Inc. The Purchase Agreement and the T/C collectively
constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all prior or
contemporaneous oral or written agreements.





Terms:  Net
14 Days


Pricing
contract period 03/01/09 through 2/28/10





Please
sign and return both copies of this letter.  After I have received the
signed copy, I will sign and return a copy for your files.  Signing
this letter acknowledges acceptance of the terms and conditions as presented
above.





Neal,
thank you for your help and support on this matter and please contact me with
any questions.





/S/
      NEAL SIMCO
            /S/
      GARY CAMPANARONeal
      Simco
            Gary
      CampanaroTyson
      Foods, Inc.
            El
      Pollo Loco, Inc.





cc:  Jennifer
Benus, Yvette Johnson/MBM