alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) and
15d-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lawrence J. Blanford, Chief Executive
Officer, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: January 20, 2012



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ LAWRENCE J. BLANFORD             
|Lawrence J. Blanford                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4662 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exclude the income and 

assets of dependent students in the calculation of the expected family 

contribution for such students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2017 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exclude 

the income and assets of dependent students in the calculation of the expected family contribution for such 

students. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Aid Enhance5 ment Act’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4662 IH

1 SEC. 2. CALCULATING EXPECTED FAMILY CONTRIBUTION 

2 FOR DEPENDENT STUDENTS. 

3 Part F of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

4 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087kk et seq.) is amended— 

5 (1) in section 474(b) (20 U.S.C. 1087nn(b))— 

6 (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘the 

7 student and’’; and 

8 (B) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ‘‘and 

9 (B) the student and’’ and inserting ‘‘or (B)’’; 

10 (2) in section 475 (20 U.S.C. 1087oo)— 

11 (A) in subsection (a)— 

12 (i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); 

13 and 

14 (ii) by striking ‘‘the sum of’’ and all 

15 that follows through ‘‘the parents’ con16 tribution’’ and inserting ‘‘the parents’ con17 tribution’’; 

18 (B) by striking subsections (g), (h), and 

19 (j); and 

20 (C) by redesignating subsection (i) as sub21 section (g); and 

22 (3) in section 480(b)(1)(F) (20 U.S.C. 

23 1087vv(b)(1)(F)), by striking ‘‘, except’’ and all that 

24 follows through ‘‘parents’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# Monroe - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Three Rivers Planning and Development District Executive Director Vernon R. Kelley III Email &#118;&#x72;&#x6b;&#64;&#x74;&#x72;p&#x64;&#x64;&#46;&#99;&#x6f;mThe post Three Rivers Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
**Exhibit 23.4****Consent of Independent Auditors**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-135910, 333-125862, 333-107659, 333-73904, 333-55978, 333-32092, and 333-65923) and Form S-3ASR (No. 333-132672) of Hanover Compressor Company and the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No.333-141695) of Iliad Holdings, Inc. therein of our report dated April 26, 2007 with respect to thefinancial statements of WilPro Energy Services (El Furrial) Limited, included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K/A) of Hanover Compressor Company for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPTulsa, OK
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                           DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     December 31,            December 31,           December 31,
                                         1997                   1996                   1995
                                    ----------------     ------------------     ------------------
<S>                                 <C>                  <C>                    <C>
Basic net income per share:      
     Net income                     $     29,914,000     $        3,846,000     $       40,062,000
     Weighted average number of  
      shares outstanding                  24,698,402             24,697,316             24,676,696
                                   =================     ==================     ==================
                                 
Basic net income per share                     $1.21                  $0.16                  $1.62
                                   =================     ==================     ==================
                                 
                                 
Diluted net income per share:    
     Net income                    $      29,914,000     $        3,846,000     $       40,062,000
     Weighted average number of   
     shares outstanding                   24,698,402             24,697,316             24,676,696
     Dilutive effect of stock                                                                        
      options                                 81,379(1)                 344(2)              16,722(3)
                                   -----------------     ------------------     ------------------
     Weighted average number of  
      shares                              24,779,781             24,697,660             24,693,418
                                   =================     ==================     ==================
                                 
Diluted net income per share                   $1.21                  $0.16                  $1.62
                                   =================     ==================     ==================
</TABLE>


-------------------------------
(1)  Represents the weighted average dilutive effect of 297,750 and 265,500,   
     stock options exercisable at $20.00 and $17.00, per share, respectively,
     calculated using the treasury stock method.

(2)  Represents the weighted average dilutive effect of 5,000 stock options
     exercisable at $18.00 per share,  respectively, calculated using the
     treasury stock method.

(3)  Represents the weighted average dilutive effect of 339,070 stock options
     exercisable at $20.00 per share, respectively, calculated using the
     treasury stock method.









                                       64
# C_2008313EN.01003702.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/37

---

Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit)

(Case T-395/08)

(2008/C 313/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 (Case No R 419/2008-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 (Case No R 419/2008-4);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark in the form of a chocolate rabbit for goods in Class 30 — Application No 3 664 372

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The mark applied for is unusual, has the function of indicating origin and has the necessary distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-7366

DOUGLAS L. GOSNELL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-382-A)

Submitted: January 26, 1999

Decided: March 22, 1999

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Douglas L. Gosnell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Wiechering, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Gosnell appeals from a district court order dismissing his

petition for modification of the terms of his supervised release. In his

petition, Gosnell argued that, in determining his sentence pursuant to

his conviction for bank fraud, the district court erred in calculating the

loss to his victims, thereby tainting his sentence and the court's restitution order. The district court found Gosnell's petition to be moot in

light of Gosnell's completion of his term of supervised release.

We need not decide whether the district court correctly found Gosnell's petition to be moot, for we may affirm the district court on

alternative grounds supported by the record. See Brewster of Lynchburg, Inc. v. Dial Corp., 33 F.3d 355, 361 n.3 (4th Cir. 1994). Our

review of the record reveals that Gosnell's petition essentially recasts

the same challenges he made to his sentence in a prior petition

rejected by the district court and affirmed by this court in 1998. See

United States v. Gosnell, No. 97-4384 (4th Cir. April 28, 1998)

(unpublished). Further challenges in the same vein to Gosnell's sentence are foreclosed under the law of the case doctrine. See Sejman

v. Warner-Lambert Co., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, the district court's order dismissing Gosnell's petition

is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
Exhibit
13.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Patricio Contesse, Chief Executive Officer of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile
S.A. (“SQM”), a corporation incorporated  under the laws of the
Republic of Chile, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





1.
            The
      Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31,
      2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of SQM.





/s/ Patricio Contesse
G.


Name:  Patricio
Contesse G.


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer


Date:
June 30, 2009
# C_2010179EN.01003702.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)

(Case T-492/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark star foods - Earlier Community figurative and word marks STAR SNACKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2010/C 179/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Wessang (Zimmerbach, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Führer and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greinwald GmbH (Kempten, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1408/2007-4);

| 2. | orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of Nicolas Wessang’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of Nicolas Wessang’s costs;

| 3. | orders Wessang to bear two-thirds of his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Wessang to bear two-thirds of his own costs;

| 4. | orders OHIM to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders OHIM to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32 of 7.2.2009

---
Counties in Bold Contain Distressed Areas

County Economic Status and Number of Distressed Areas in 

Appalachian New York, Fiscal Year 2020

County Status

Economic

Areas

Distressed

Number of

Allegany At-Risk 1

Broome Transitional 16

Cattaraugus Transitional 3

Chautauqua Transitional 7

Chemung Transitional 4

Chenango Transitional 1

Cortland Transitional 1

Delaware Transitional

Otsego Transitional 1

Schoharie Transitional

Schuyler Transitional

Steuben Transitional 1

Tioga Transitional

Tompkins Transitional

Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2019
Distressed Areas in Appalachian New York, 

Fiscal Year 2020

County

Census Tract 

ID Number

Allegany 9506

Broome 1

Broome 2

Broome 3

Broome 4

Broome 5

Broome 6

Broome 7

Broome 9

Broome 11

Broome 12

Broome 13

Broome 18

Broome 135

Broome 136

Broome 139

Broome 140

Cattaraugus 9400

Cattaraugus 9403

Cattaraugus 9617

Chautauqua 301

Chautauqua 302

Chautauqua 303

Chautauqua 305

Chautauqua 306

Chautauqua 354

Chautauqua 356

Chemung 1

Chemung 6

Chemung 7

Chemung 10

Chenango 9704

Cortland 9709

Otsego 5911

Steuben 9609

Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2019
STEUBEN

DELAWARE

OTSEGO

CATTARAUGUS ALLEGANY

TIOGA

BROOME

CHAUTAUQUA

CHENANGO

SCHOHARIE

TOMPKINS

CORTLAND

CHEMUNG

SCHUYLER

County Economic Status in Appalachian New York, 

Fiscal Year 2020

0 25 50

Miles

Levels of 

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Transitional County

Competitive County

Attainment County
STEUBEN

DELAWARE

OTSEGO

CATTARAUGUS ALLEGANY

TIOGA

BROOME

CHAUTAUQUA

CHENANGO

SCHOHARIE

TOMPKINS

CORTLAND

CHEMUNG

SCHUYLER

County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in

Appalachian New York, Fiscal Year 2020

N Y 

P A 

Levels of 

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Distressed Area

Transitional County

Distressed Area

Competitive County

Attainment County

0 15 30

Miles
# C_2021481EN.01000601.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA v European Commission

(Case C-55/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
#### Camperlino and Fatti Builders, Inc., Respondent, v Dimovich Construction Corporation et al., Appellants.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant Sofia Dimovich abandoned an appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, entered August 17, 1988, granting partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract and directing specific performance. Judgment was never entered upon that order, specific performance never occurred, and specific performance is now impossible because a judgment foreclosing a mortgage has been entered and defendants no longer own the property. *596Plaintiff made a second motion for summary judgment, which resulted in an order striking defendants’ amended answer and directing an assessment of money damages. Defendant Sofia Dimovich contends on this appeal from the second order that factual issues have been raised concerning the validity of the contract. The first order necessarily determined the validity of the contract and is law of the case *(see*generally, 1 CarmodyWait 2d, NY Prac § 2:64). The doctrine of election of remedies does not apply because specific performance and damages for breach of contract are not inconsistent, both being in affirmance of the contract *(see, Judnick Realty Corp. v 32 W. 32nd St. Corp.,*61 NY2d 819, 823; *see also,*2 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 10:1 *et seq.J.*(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Clay M. Whitson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of iPayment, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in 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 has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 13, 2007 By: /s/ Clay M. Whitson Clay M. Whitson    Chief Financial Officer