alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2009 of Education Management Corporation;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 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 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; andc)
    
    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
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 registrants ability to
record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Todd S. NelsonTodd S. NelsonChief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC

Appellate case number: 01-14-00256-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-43366

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

The Court REQUESTS a response to Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus from Real 

Party in Interest, Salvadore Maciel. The response, if any, is due within 30 days of the date of 

this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 1, 2014
Order No. 97-38

19127

April 24, 1997

#### State v. Bunker

Affirmed
#### Morgan et al., Appellees, *v.*Jonas, Appellant.

*520(No. 32001

Decided January 11, 1950.)

*Mr. George A. Hettinger,*for appellees.

*Mr. Myron C. Hoff,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged, *sua sponte,*that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

L4liEMAN 

11( U. 

C.J. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LESLIE MARK STOVALL, D/B/A 

STOVALL & ASSOCIATES, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

LETICIA RIVERA, 

No. 69287 

FILED 

JUN 2 9 2016 

Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED.' 

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge 

Craig A. Hoppe, Settlement Judge 

Stovall & Associates 

Injury Lawyers of Nevada 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1 In light of this order, the May 23, 2016, order conditionally 

imposing sanctions is vacated. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(()) 1947A 0 Ito-ao3"1
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Pale Cyst Nematode Program

Infested Field Confirmatory Policy

Last Modified: 

Print

Effective December 17, 2018, this policy is specific to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) pale cyst nematode

program (Globodera pallida; PCN) and is based on knowledge about the biology and

epidemiology of the organism. Specimens must be identified and confirmed by an

APHIS‐approved laboratory using definitive morphological/morphometric and

molecular identification techniques. If the pest is confirmed positive for PCN,

regulatory action will result as outlined in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §

301.86‐3(c). 

Morphological and Molecular PCN Confirmation

Process

Complete, definitive identification of G. pallida is a multi‐step process, as follows: 

1. Verify that the sample contains suspect Globodera spp. cysts.

2. Verify that the suspect cysts and/or any juvenile forms have key characters and

are morphometrically consistent with Globodera species.

3. Verify that the suspect nematode tissue yields DNA identifiable as G. pallida as

per the APHIS, Science and Technology, Plant Pathogen Confirmatory

Diagnostic Laboratory, Laurel, Maryland. Protocol by Skantar et al., 2007,
posted at Morphological and Molecular Identification of Globodera pallida

Associated with Potato in Idaho - PMC (nih.gov)

PCN Infested Field Confirmation 

As per 7 CFR § 301.86‐3(c), the Administrator will designate a field as an infested

when a pale cyst nematode is found in the field. The technical minimum threshold

for declaring a field infested/positive for pale cyst nematode is met by detecting a

minimum of two cysts from two

samples that were identified as Globodera spp. by morphological/morphometric

analysis, and at least one of the cysts was viable and confirmed as G. pallida by

molecular deoxyribonucleic acid analysis. It is not necessary for the two samples to

come from the same survey event.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 69 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. MILLER of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Veterans’ Af4 fairs (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $7,505,092.00 for the One Hundred Four9 teenth Congress. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 69 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $3,752,546.00 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2015, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2016; and 

7 (2) not more than $3,752,546.00 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2016, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2017. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year 27-Apr-21

Total number of animals research facilities used in regulated activities (Column D) Page 1 of 2

Region: * Fiscal Year: 2019

State: * Classes: *

Org/Cust ID Number: Pain Type: ALL_PAINTYPES

All Other 

Covered 

Species

Cats Dogs Guinea Pigs Hamsters Nonhuman 

Primates

Pig Rabbits Sheep Total

AK 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189

AL 577 141 485 11 66 215 514 430 18 2,457

AR 18 0 0 0 0 65 1,349 0 0 1,432

AZ 610 112 193 0 109 40 316 67 128 1,575

CA 2,920 325 1,038 775 525 1,525 5,436 9,233 1,053 22,830

CO 447 37 340 954 106 0 918 451 613 3,896

CT 219 0 50 85 53 51 236 185 0 879

DC 2,070 3 20 53 5 23 281 103 3 2,561

DE 10 21 15 20 0 0 17 597 0 680

FL 1,076 319 385 34 0 117 997 52 143 3,123

GA 1,867 133 292 419 1,278 1,356 407 1,127 89 6,968

HI 0 102 68 0 0 0 38 0 0 208

IA 1,154 222 181 274 62 0 737 385 23 3,038

ID 215 9 11 8 134 0 0 0 8 385

IL 584 268 731 111 656 268 539 618 182 3,957

IN 387 119 261 418 399 18 348 2,123 44 4,117

KS 302 22 102 892 38 45 144 25 0 1,570

KY 182 115 144 0 80 24 227 44 27 843

LA 905 184 614 26 0 1,334 86 197 0 3,346

MA 1,549 103 1,399 3,939 345 3,561 2,597 3,835 263 17,591

MD 1,646 17 238 4,312 1,311 3,936 1,388 2,148 101 15,097

ME 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 53

MI 67 65 440 198 0 377 509 951 216 2,823

MN 589 75 689 345 1,179 161 3,369 1,485 833 8,725
MO 161 137 602 356 1,393 96 2,017 892 113 5,767

MS 910 16 70 13 105 57 161

0 513

MT 294

0000700

0 301

NC 5,225 657 949 173 454 974 2,805 1,487 100 12,824

ND 12 30 32

000 1400 88

NE 387 56 46 10 230 80 123 57 41 1,030

NH 11300000 115 260 254

NJ 744 30 376 7,630 2,461 807 265 3,170

7 15,490

NM20 660 27 109 107 128

0 439

NV 145 85 5230 540 113 200 940

NY 2,523 267 422 1,072 781 612 1,169 1,810 230 8,886

OH 2,041 467 881 1,043 930 89 1,874 3,357 247 10,929

OK 251 31 92 1720 112 39 83 57 837

OR 455 10 13 219

2 885 225 22 223 2,054

PA 1,115 493 1,032 715 182 1,244 847 8,589 369 14,586

PR00000 795 280 112

RI 380

40 258 33 77 2000 610

SC 139 143 20500 256 160 713 977

SD 293000040 140 311

TN 1,218 66 173 69 255 83 599 334 2,500

TX 2,742 131 532 290 856 716 2,497 2,043 330 10,137

UT 179 14 102 50 86 23 212 767 171 1,604

VA 495 16 119 3770 40 1,276 183 16 2,522

VT 25 45 15000

06 2,955 3,046

WA 6,475 49 176 30 16 1,080 482 190 13 8,511

WI 921 197 1,458 1,244 111 2,698 1,109 3,357 225 11,320

WV 31 68 920000 59 119 369

WY 59 13 30000 18

1 13 134

REPORT 

TOTAL

43,762 5,397 15,652 26,394 14,455 23,248 36,658 50,858 8,980 225,404
#### Doe, John (DOB 2/20/79), In re

18201

12/14/94

Affirmed
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 
<NAME> HEALTHSOURCE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         121,467
<SECURITIES>                                   102,658
<RECEIVABLES>                                  117,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               427,496
<PP&E>                                         103,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 873,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          283,026
<BONDS>                                         95,000
<COMMON>                                         6,358
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     381,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   873,039
<SALES>                                      1,166,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,187,520
<CGS>                                          917,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,095,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,049
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,778
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81
        

</TABLE>
19282

#### State v. Pascual

January 24, 1997

Order No. 97-8

Affirmed
#### William W. HAMMETT, Plaintiff, v. The UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, Defendant.

No. 14067.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 26, 1976.

William W. Hammett, pro se., for plaintiff.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a Tax Commission order assessing some taxes allegedly due for income tax delinquencies for the four years 1969-1972 aggregating $287 (No penalties were assessed). Affirmed, with no costs.

Petitioner insists that his wife was a party to some kind of business association, —not a partnership. No returns were filed as such, — but appellant insists that the parties to the joint or un jointed adventure could allocate their time and income separately as they pleased, without question by the Commission. The $287 was not paid, regardless of status, and the tax auditors were unimpressed therefore and also unimpressed by petitioners’ adverting to one of the Commissioners comments that “marriage is not a condition of servitude,” —which must have been confused with the maxim that “servitude is not a condition of marriage.”

So far as we can see from the facts of this case, the taxpayer, understandably disgruntled as many of us taxpayers are, had little of substance save an unwarranted charge of unfairness on the part of the Commission based on generality, — not specificity.

There is little evidence of malfeasance in this case, but only resentment against a tax load that is distasteful to many overburdened taxpayers, but which should not be the basis for condemnation of the administrators who have a job to do.

CROCKETT, TUCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

ELLETT, J., concurs in the result.
20 P.3d 1241

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

March 9, 2001

23209

#### State v. Hong

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Craig S. Fawcett, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of XATA
Corporation;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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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
small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business
issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the
small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control
over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business
issuer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 small business
issuers internal control over financial reporting. December 20, 2004 Signature:
    
    /s/ Craig S. FawcettName:
    
    Craig S. FawcettPrint Title:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

JUL 2 7 2012 

Kelly J. Barr, Esq. 

Senior Director, Salt River Project 

P.O. Box 52025 

Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 

Dear Ms Barr: 

I am responding to your letter dated June 26,2012 regarding the proposed emission limit for nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) at the Coronado Generating Station Unit 2. In our proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on July 20,2012, we proposed an emissions limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, but 

stated that we would pursue further information regarding specific changes required to meet a lower 

emissions limit. We are requesting such information from Salt River Project (SRP) by August 17, 

2012. 

EPA proposed an emission limit for NOx of 0.080 lb/MMBtu at Coronado Unit 2 based on SRP's 

claim that, in order to meet a lower limit of 0.050 lb/MMBtu, it would need to restart work already 

underway on the design and construction of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) retrofit. In SRP's 

June 26th letter, SRP claimed that this lower limit could cause excessive cost and likely failure to 

meet the deadline in the consent decree between the U.S. government and SRP. 

Before we can incorporate these considerations into our final BART analysis for Coronado Unit 2, 

we need further documentation regarding both the technical feasibility and the cost of meeting the 

lower limit. Specifically, we are requesting documentation of the design changes to the SCR that 

would be needed to meet a limit of 0.050 lb/MMBtu for NOx at Unit 2. We are also requesting SRP's 

plan for managing the SCR catalyst layers to meet the consent decree limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu, and 

how that plan might change in order to meet a limit of 0.050 lb/MMBtu. Please include in your 

response the amount of spare space for catalyst layers, the expected frequency of catalyst layer 

replacement, vendor recommendations and guarantees, and documentation of specific "sunk costs" 

expended by SRP to comply with the requirements of the consent decree. We will evaluate all 

information received and determine whether a limit of 0.050 IblMMBtu is technically feasible and 

cost-effective. 

To allow the public adequate time to evaluate and comment on this information, we are requesting 

this information by August 17,2012. Your prompt response to this request would be appreciated. 
Please feel fiee to contact me at 41 5-972-3 133, or Colleen McKaughan at 520-498-01 18, if you have 

any questions about our request. 

Sincerely, 

,gfleborah 4 ordan ' Air Division Director 

cc: Kara Montalvo, SRP
27040

#### Winterborne v. State

Affirmed
#### Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd. v. Dow

18523

6/12/97

Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND 
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10Q AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,116
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  800,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          33,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 860,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        429,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           392
<OTHER-SE>                                     275,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   860,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,099
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,875
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,875
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
June 30, 1997

19016

#### State v. Choe

Affirmed