alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Courtney C. Smith, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Specialty Underwriters’Alliance, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) [Intentionally Omitted];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
23

 
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005       /s/ Courtney C. Smith              Courtney C. Smith         President and Chief Executive Officer  
24
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Randall K. Gausman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tut Systems Inc.,on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial conditionand results of operations of Tut Systems, Inc.

 

 
|               | By:    | /s/ Randall K. Gausman                                                                                 |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Randall K. Gausman  Vice President, Finance and Administration,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |   |
|               |   |                                                                                                   |   |
| Date: May 12, 2005 |   |                                                                                                   |   |

 

----
TS-K784YDAttachment2Page1/1lnventoryExpertServiceAdivisionoftheAmericanChemicalSocietyPhone:800·631-1884,614-447·3870Fax:614-447-3747E-mail:answers@cas.orgWeb:www.cas.org/products/other-cas-products/client-services/INVENTORYEXPERTSERVICEREPORTIESOrderNumherdCBIRegistryNumber:______,CAIndexName:PleaseprinttheaboveCAIndexNameontheappropriatepageofyourPMN.CASDIfthisboxischecked,CAShasmadecorrection(s)markedinredtoyourIESorder.PleasemakethesamecorrectionstoyourPMNbeforesubmittingittotheEPA.2540OlentangyRiverRoadP.O.Box3343Columbus,OH43210-0334USA
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued013552N
Boston Shipping Enterprise, Inc., 506 Decatur Street, Brooklyn, NY 11233
February 23, 2012.014169N
Expedited Transportation Services, Inc., 505 Plantation Park Drive, Suite B, Loganville, GA 30052
March 14, 2012.020849N
Master Freight America Corp., 8925 NW 26th Street, Miami, FL 33172
March 14, 2012.021797F
Four Points Ocean Inc., 1460 Route 9 North, Suite 303, Woodbridge, NJ 07095
March 1, 2012.022238F
Grimes Supply Chain Services, Inc., 600 North Ellis Road, Jacksonville, FL 32254
March 31, 2012.
 Vern W. Hill, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 2012-9988 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: ____November 30, 2007______

Subject: __Sunset- Ozone Gas_____ 

Chair: _Andrea M. Caroe_______________ 

 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: ___X____

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

To renew ozone gas to §205.601(a)(5) Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop 

production. 

(a) as algaecide, disinfectants, sanitizers, including irrigation system cleaners 

(5) Ozone gas- for use as an irrigation system cleaner only. 

NOSB Vote: Motion: G. Davis Second: T. Ellor 

Board vote: Yes - 15 No- 0 Abstain- 0 Absent - 0 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

Some use of material reported. No new information presented to warrant removal. 

Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
Crops Committee Recommendation for §205.601 September 12, 2007 

I. List: 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

II. Category Use 

(a) As algaecide, disinfectants, and sanitizers, including irrigation system cleaners. 

 

III. Committee Summary: Ozone gas was added to the National List (Federal Register 

Vol. 68, No. 211 10/31/2003) under the above listed category with the annotation; ‘for 

use as an irrigation system cleaner only’. Used in this way, this material would typically 

be generated on the farm with equipment designed to produce O3 gas from atmospheric 

oxygen and inject it into the irrigation water stream. Being a strong oxidizer, the O3 kills 

algae and bacteria and helps to keep irrigation lines clean of accumulations of these 

organisms, before reverting to the harmless, natural O2 form. Used this way, ozone gas is 

considered safe and an environmentally sound practice. In checking with a variety of 

certifiers, some interest was found for keeping the material and no strong feelings were 

expressed for removing from the List. The Crops Committee welcomes any new or other 

information that would call this material into question for continuation on the National 

List. 

IV. Committee Recommendation: 

Recommendation based upon comments received- 205.601(a) 

The Crops Committee recommends renewal in the use category: 

(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizers, including irrigation system cleaners. 

(5) Ozone gas- for use as an irrigation system cleaner only. 

Moved: Ellor Second: Delgado 

Committee vote: Yes: 6 No: 0 Absent: 1 Board vote:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kali Williams, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the statements he made to the police should have been suppressed on the ground that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his *Miranda*rights. At the *Huntley*hearing, defendant presented a special education teacher, a diagnostician and a psychologist, all of whom testified that defendant suffered from a severe auditory processing disability which prevented him from understanding or processing information given to him. The diagnostician opined that defendant could not understand the meaning of the *Miranda*warnings even if the words were repeated several times.

In contrast, the People presented the testimony of several police officers who, on other recent occasions, had given defendant *Miranda*warnings. On those occasions, defendant expressed a willingness to talk to them, gave no indication that he did not understand them and appeared to comprehend what was said to him. The People’s consulting psychiatrist opined that, based upon his examination of defendant, and his review of defendant’s police records, school records and test results, defendant was able to understand and knowingly and voluntarily waive his *Miranda*rights.

In reviewing the determination of the suppression court, great weight must be accorded that court’s decision because of its ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Bucknor,*140 AD2d 705, *lv denied*72 NY2d 1043). An accused of subnormal intelligence may effectively waive his or her *Miranda*rights "so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” *(People v Williams,*62 NY2d 285, 287; *see also, People v Matthews,*148 AD2d 272, 274, *lv dismissed*74 NY2d 950; *People v Bucknor, supra).*"Whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights is a factual question to be determined by the totality of the circumstances, which includes the defendant’s limited mental capacity as but one factor” *(People v Matthews, supra,*at 274). Here, the record fully supports the suppression court’s finding of an effective waiver and, accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress the statement to the police was properly denied. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County *970Court, Barrett, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
NUMBER 13-15-00002-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

CHARLES LEO ANDERSON III, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s appointed counsel, Ruben R. Lerma, Jr., has filed a motion requesting 

to withdraw as counsel. According to his motion to withdraw, good cause exists for him

to withdraw. Counsel states that appellant has specified ineffective assistance of 

counsel as a basis to appeal and counsel believes a conflict exists preventing counsel 

from continuing as appellant’s attorney.
2

Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel 

rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 

(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the 

appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with 

a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of 

this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant’s court-appointed 

attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to 

new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge 

appellant’s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall 

enter an order to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be 

appointed, the name, address, telephone number, email address, and state bar number 

of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The trial 

court shall further cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be 

filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of 

this order. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

14th day of April, 2015.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PortalPlayer, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gary Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Svend-Olav Carlsen, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PortalPlayer, Inc.

Dated: November 9, 2006



|                                      |  |  |  |                                           
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                                      |  | 
|/s/ GARY JOHNSON                      |  |  |  | /s/ SVEND-OLAV CARLSEN                    
|Gary Johnson                          |  |  |  | Svend-Olav Carlsen                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
AVOCADO ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

Marketing Order No. 915

Term Ends March 31

MANAGER:

Anita Fernandez

Phone: (305) 247-0848

anita@floridaavocado.org

CHAIRPERSON:

Medora Krome

Phone: (305) 235-3520

Mkavoc9@gmail.com

GROWERS

District Members Alternates Term 

Ending

District 1 Medora Krome

Homestead, FL

Steven Hoveland

Homestead, FL

2024

District 1 Gerald Case

Miami, FL

Omelio Rodriguez

Coral Gables, FL

2024

District 1 Margaret Pikarsky

Homestead, FL

VACANT 2024

District 1 Carlos De La Torre

Miami, FL

Victoria Barnes

Homestead, FL

2024

District 2 Mitchell McLellan, Sr.

Frostproof, FL

VACANT 2024

HANDLERS

District Members Alternates Term 

Ending

District 1 William Brindle

Homestead, FL

Peter Leifermann

Homestead, FL

2024

District 1 Jorge León 

Princeton, FL

Marcela Jacques

Princeton, FL

2024

District 1 Manuel Hevia

Miami, FL

Diego Rodríguez

Florida City, FL

2024

District 2 VACANT VACANT N/A

PUBLIC

Members Alternates Term Ending

Jonathan Crane

Homestead, FL

Daniel Carillo

Homestead, FL

2024
AMS Animal Handling and Welfare Performance – Fiscal Year: 20201/,2/,3/,7/ 

Species / Total # Animals Observed Missed Stuns4/,5/ Sensible Animals on Rail 

Supplier (% of Grand Total) # % # % 

Beef Total 2,209 (44.1) 1 0.05 0 0 

S1 50 (1.0) 0 0 0 0 

S2 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S4 200 (4.0) 0 0 0 0 

S5 200 (4.0) 0 0 0 0 

S6 50 (1.0) 0 0 0 0 

S10 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S11 100 (2.0) ■ ■ 0 0 

S12 200 (4.0) 0 0 0 0 

S21 50 (1.0) 0 0 0 0 

S25 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S28 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S296/ 22 (0.4) 0 0 0 0 

S31 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S32 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S41 237 (4.7) 1 0.42 0 0 

S42 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S43 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S45 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

V50 200 (4.0) 0 0 0 0 

Pork Total 2,500 (49.9) 0 0 0 0 

S1 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S2 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S3 200 (4.0) --- --- 0 0 

S4 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S5 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S6 200 (4.0) --- --- 0 0 

S7 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S8 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S13 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S14 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S15 400 (8.0) --- --- 0 0 

S16 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S17 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S18 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S19 200 (4.0) --- --- 0 0 

S20 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S22 100 (2.0) --- --- 0 0 

S23 200 (4.0) 0 0 0 0 

Lamb Total 300 (6.0) 0 0 0 0 

S2 100 (2.0) 0 0 0 0 

S3 200 (4.0) 0 0 0 0 

Grand Total 5,009 (100.0) 1 0.02 0 0 1/A full description of AMS animal handling and welfare purchase program requirements is available here. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. 

3/Data summarized from findings obtained from AMS/Livestock and Poultry Program/Quality Assessment Division audits. 4/Religious harvest (Kosher and Halal) is exempt from effective stunning calculations and is denoted with “■”. 5/Suppliers utilizing CO2 stunning (e.g. gondolas) are not evaluated for missed stuns and are denoted with “---”. 6/Low capacity establishment. 

7/Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions, no animal handling and welfare audits were conducted between 4/1/2020 – 8/19/2020.
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

MARIO MAGLAQUE SISON, Jr.;

VIVIAN MONIQUE SISON,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 08-70351

08-72336

Agency Nos. A095-198-335

A095-198-336

MEMORANDUM*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Mario Maglaque Sison, Jr., and

Vivian Monique Sison, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motion to

reopen and their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

FILED

JUN 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70351

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or

reconsider. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002). In No. 08-70351,

we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In No. 08-72336, we

deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen because the motion was filed more than 19 months after the BIA’s October

28, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, and failed to qualify for an

exception to the 90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian

v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to

reconsider because petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the

BIA’s December 26, 2007, decision concluding that the motion to reopen was

untimely and failed to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(b)(1).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider petitioners’ remaining

contentions.

In No. 08-70351: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
3 08-70351

DISMISSED in part.

In No. 08-72336: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Local Food Purchase Assistance 

Commodity Procurement Program

USDA-AMS is establishing cooperative agreements with states, territories, and federally recognized tribal 

governments for the purpose of supporting local, regional, and underserved farmers and producers 

through food purchases with the LFPA funds. These cooperative agreements will allow recipients to 

procure local and domestic foods that are unique to their geographic area and meets the needs of their 

population. Underserved communities will be the priority for distribution of the foods purchased through 

the program. 

• The LFPA program allows applicants the flexibility to design innovative procurement programs that 

strengthen their local and regional food systems by purchasing foods that are healthy, nutritious, and 

unique to their geographic area within their state or territory.

• Food purchases must include both fresh and minimally processed foods. Any food or beverage product 

that meets the definition for domestic and local are permissible, including seafood. Local is defined as 

within the state or territory or within 400 miles of the distribution site.

• Funds will help increase the consumption of local food and build and expand economic opportunity 

for local and underserved producers, farmers and ranchers.

• These cooperative agreements will allow applicants to tailor food distribution to the needs of the 

population and feeding programs, including food banks, and organizations that serve underserved 

communities.

• The agreement holders will be required to provide quarterly performance and financial reports along 

with annual and final reports. Agreements may be up to two years in length.

For additional information regarding LFPA visit 

www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/lfpacap or contact Elizabeth 

Lober at Elizabeth.Lober@USDA.gov

December 2022 / USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

James David Haynes, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-15-00029-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 14F0359-005). 

Opinion delivered by *Justice Carter and 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley 

participating. *Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, James David Haynes, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 7, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk