alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
             August 8, 2008
    
    By /s/ Stanley J. Olander, Jr.
    
    Chief Executive Officer and PresidentDate
    
    Stanley J. Olander, Jr.
    
    (principal executive officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Mark T. Walton certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this annual report on Form 10-K of Travis Boats & Motors,
     Inc.;

2.   Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual report;

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I are  responsible  for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant  and have:  a)
     Designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures 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  annual  report  is being
     prepared;  b) Evaluated the  effectiveness of the  registrant's  disclosure
     controls  and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing
     date of this annual  report (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and c) Presented in
     this  annual  report  our  conclusions   about  the  effectiveness  of  the
     disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
     Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based on
     our most recent  evaluation,  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 in the design or
     operation  of  internal   controls   which  could   adversely   affect  the
     registrant's ability to record,  process,  summarize,  and report financial
     data  and  have  identified  for the  registrant's  auditors  any  material
     weaknesses in internal controls; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
     that involves  management or other employees who have a significant role in
     the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
     annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal  controls
     or in other  factors  that could  significantly  affect  internal  controls
     subsequent  to the  date  of our  most  recent  evaluation,  including  any
     corrective  actions with regard to  significant  deficiencies  and material
     weaknesses.

                                    /s/ Mark T. Walton
                                    Mark T. Walton, President

Date: January 13, 2004
#### Kearney R. ADAMS et al., Appellants, v. Delbert SHOOPMAN, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 10, 1958.

Ira L. Pittman, Liberty, for appellants.

H. Myer Garner, Liberty, for appellee. .

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Casey Circuit Court, Honorable James C. Carter, Jr., Judge, dismissing appellants’ complaint seeking possession of a certain building occupied by appellee under a written lease. Appellants base their right of re-entry on the allegation of nonpayment of rent.

Inasmuch as the lease does not contain a forfeiture clause, the appellee’s failure to pay rent when due does not constitute a ground upon which appellant may be granted relief in this action. 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, Section 852, p. 723; 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 104(b), p. 683.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed.

MONTGOMERY, J., not sitting.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7704

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-99-341; CA-03-3299) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Owen Harriot, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Owen Harriot seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harriot has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OTILIO OSTORGA CRUZ,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72889

Agency No. A070

- 639

- 740

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Otilio Ostorga Cruz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his app eal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLE RK U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 7 2889

conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo

constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ostorga Cruz’s motion to

reopen, based on lack of notice, where Ostorga Cruz no longer disputes that he was
personally served a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) that informed him of his obligation

to update the court with a current address, and he failed to inform th e court that the

address listed on his NTA was no longer his current address

. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen in absentia proceedings based on lack of

notice may be filed at any time); 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(5)(B ) (n o notice of hearing

required if the alien has failed to inform the government of a change in address)

. Contrary to Ostorga Cruz’s contention, the agency did not err or violate due

process by not providing the contents of the NTA in Spanish. See Flores

- Chavez

v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does not require
that the Notice to Appear . . . be in any language other than English.”); Lata v. INS
, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to

prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      15,120,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              421,759,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,514,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 826,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             456,047,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      182,667,000
<BONDS>                                    197,297,000
<COMMON>                                        48,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,323,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               456,047,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,704,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,073,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               450,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,990,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,191,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,416,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,775,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,775,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
Memorandum

TO: Portland Cement NESHAP Docket

From Keith Barnett, US EPA

Subject: EPA Method 321 Detection Limits and Minimum Quantification Limit (MQL)

DATE: July 26, 2010

Detection Limit

In order to determine the typical detec tion limits for EPA method 321 EPA we revived available HCl test reports where EPA Method 321 wa s used. These reports are available in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, we c ontacted a testing firm that had extensive knowledge in performing EPA method 321 tests on cement kilns and lime k ilns, including kilns with wet scrubbers. They estimated that typical detection limits were 0.2 to 0.2 ppmv. (See attached telecon).

In order to determine the minimum quantification limits, we referred to American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and Pr ecision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stac k Emission Measurements , CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001. In this

reference the levels at which measurements become reliable is estimated at 3 times the

detection limit. We used this factor to establis h a MQL of 0.9 ppmv as measured in the stack.

In order to convert this measurement to 7 percent oxygen and a dry basis, we assumed 26 percent moisture and 13 per cent oxygen (reasonable worst case conditions from a review of stack test data), and used the standard stack test calculation methods to convert to 7 percent oxygen and dry basis. The result in an MQL of 2.13 ppmv, dry basis at 7 percent oxygen which

we rounded to 3.0.

0.9 ppm wet basis/ (1-0.26 percent H2) = 1.216ppmvd at the stack oxygen concentration

1.216 x ((20.9 - 7)/(20.9 - 13)) = 2.13 95 ppmvd at 7 percent oxygenAttachments

Telecon with Laura Kinner, Emi ssion Monitoring Inc., April 29, 2010

The HCl detection limit for EPA Me thod 321 is 0.2 ppmv usually, with wet plants it is typically 0.3 ppmv due to high water content.

Email from Laura Kinner, Emission Monitoring Inc

.

HCl DL from Lime Plants lkinner@emissionmonitoring.com

to: Keith Barnett

04/29/2010 11:41 AM

Keith:

I have data from two of Chem Lime's scrubbed plants. We typically detect HCl post scrubber since they do not add fresh water, only water for make up. Therefore, the HCl is scrubbed a nd some is stripped/not scrubbed. Both kiln systems had about 4 ppm HCl (v ) wet, but very low flow rates so they were classified as area sources. We calculated our detection limit to be about 0.25ppm (v) wet at 20% moisture for these units.

lkinner@emissionmonitoring.com Emission Monitoring Inc.

8901 Glenwood Ave. Raleigh, NC 27617

252.586.7938

919.781.3824

919.610.7313
#### Berry BUTLER et al., Petitioners, v. Leon MOTEN et al., Respondents.

No. A-8428.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 28, 1961.

*918Berry & Smither, Huntsville, for petitioners.

Bennett & Bennett, Huntsville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Since no motion for rehearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals as required by Rule 469(c), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, respondents’ motion to dismiss petitioners’ application for want of jurisdiction is granted, and the application for writ of error is dismissed. See State Board of Morticians v. Cortez, 157 Tex. 649, 308 S.W.2d 12.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0645

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

JUNE LEE WOLVERINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 26, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 19 2022

08/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0645
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001013149
<NAME> ICT GROUP, INC
<CURRENCY> 1

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                      17,711,028              18,298,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,684,071              13,539,085
<ALLOWANCES>                                   345,897                 354,525
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,441,502              32,804,466
<PP&E>                                      32,802,737              21,269,690
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,359,126               9,637,805
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,577,770              49,111,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,911,864               5,738,409
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       115,423                 115,383
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,252,778              40,904,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,577,770              49,111,777
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            91,652,978              71,599,435
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,662,062              38,536,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            37,008,848              42,951,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               315,539                 446,289
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (397,942)                 179,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,380,010            (10,514,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,708,204             (2,997,748)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,671,806             (7,516,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,671,806             (7,516,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23                  (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22                  (0.72)



</TABLE>
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 217TH DISTRIC T COURT OF ANGELINA COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 30th

day of January, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JUSTIN LESLIE DURHAM , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00151

- CR; Trial Court No. CR

- 29271

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Cou rt made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED an d DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals Di strict of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 27 th day of March , 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                     National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIDDK Application Review: RFA-DK-23-017 (U01) and RFA-DK-23-018 (U24) Continuation of the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN).                

*Date:*                     March 21, 2024.                

*Time:*                     9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                

*Agenda:*                     To review and evaluate grant applications.                

*Place:*                     National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                

*Contact Person:*                     Cheryl Nordstrom, Ph.D., M.Ph., Scientific Review Officer, NIDDK/Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7013, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6711,                     *cheryl.nordstrom@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2024.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-01845 Filed 1-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, Robert Howard-Anderson,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of OccamNetworks, Inc..

|   | By:    | /s/ Robert Howard-Anderson            |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                       |
|   | Name:  | Robert Howard-Anderson                |
|   |   |                                       |
|   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                                       |

I, Howard Bailey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.

|   | By:    | /s/ Howard Bailey       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                         |
|   | Name:  | Howard Bailey           |
|   |   |                         |
|   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |                         |