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




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      John
      M. Eggemeyer, III, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of White River Capital,
      Inc.;




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 quarterly report is being prepared;




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




c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter 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 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; and




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






Date:
                March 16, 2007/s/
              John M. Eggemeyer, IIIJohn
                M. Eggemeyer, IIIChief
                Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Nalley, Also Known as Joseph Nally, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered February 5, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was caused in the course and furtherance of the robbery or in the immediate flight therefrom *(see,*Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Fiber, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

S an Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00142

- CR

IN RE GABRIEL R. GARCIA,

From the 406th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007CRS000739D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

S itting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Relator has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. This court believes a serious

question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). However, the petition fails to comply with various provisions of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedures.

We therefore ORDER relator to file an amended petition that contains all contents

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3, and to serve the amended filing on both the

respondent trial judge and the State. Relator’s amended petition is due no later than 15 da ys after

the date of this order.

The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this

court no later than 15 days after relator’s amended petition is filed. Any such response must

conform to Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 52.4.

I t is so ORDERED on this 16th day of April, 2021

.

P ER CUR IAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
April 11, 2011

The following attachments were made available for v iewing (as posters or as an oral presentation) and as handouts (information sheets) at the open house and public hearing events in Shiprock, Fruitland, Farmington, and Durango during the week of March 28, 2011.
AAM-11-279-E 

May 3, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10257 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0419 

Mr. Gordon Mills 

Alpine Aviation 

13310 Nevada City Avenue 

Grass Valley, CA 95945 

Dear Mr. Mills: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Alpine Aviation for an exemption from part 120 Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would permit Alpine Aviation, which is 

operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Alpine Aviation. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Alpine Aviation an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to 

the extent necessary to permit Alpine Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Alpine Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Alpine Aviation part 135 operation, not under the part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
An equal opportunity employer

1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White

Washington, DC 20005-4070 Health Sciences Manager

Tel 202-682-8344

Fax 202-682-8270

whiter@api.org

September 2, 2011

Karl Simon

Division Director

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 6406J

Washington, DC 20460

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: 

Final Submission for 211(b) (Docket No. A-90-07)

Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A One-Generation Whole-Body 

Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00-4205)

Dear Mr. Karl Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), 

is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) 

Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

• Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A One-Generation Whole-Body 

Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00-4205)

This report has undergone review by two independent peer-reviewers, outside QA/QC, the 

211(b) Technical Workgroup, and EPA (Hauchman to Oge Memorandum, December 17, 2010). 

Therefore the final report is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean 

Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07). If you require further information or 

have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me.

Regards,

Russell D. White

Encl (1): Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A One-Generation Whole Body 

Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00-4205)

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Virginia Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Virginia Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 2      | 1      | 1      | 2      | 2      | 1      | 3      | 6      | 9     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2240 

AN ACT 

To authorize the exchange of land or interest in land between 

Lowell National Historical Park and the city of Lowell 

in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2240 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lowell National His3 torical Park Land Exchange Act of 2012’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

5 The Act entitled ‘‘An act to provide for the establish6 ment of the Lowell National Historical Park in the Com7 monwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes’’ ap8 proved June 5, 1978 (Public Law 95–290; 16 U.S.C. 

9 410cc et seq.), is amended in section 202, by adding at 

10 the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(d)(1) The Secretary may exchange any land or in12 terest in land within the boundaries of the park for any 

13 land or interest in land owned by the Commonwealth of 

14 Massachusetts, the city of Lowell, or the University of 

15 Massachusetts Building Authority. 

16 ‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an ex17 change under this subsection shall be subject to the laws, 

18 regulations, and policies applicable to exchanges of land 

19 administered by the National Park Service and any other 

20 terms and conditions that the Secretary determines to be 

21 necessary to protect the interests of the United States. 

22 ‘‘(3) Where facilities or infrastructure required for 

23 the management and operation of the Lowell National 

24 Historical Park exists on the Federal land to be ex25 changed, and the non-Federal land or interest in land to 

26 be exchanged is not of equal value, the values shall be 
3 

•HR 2240 EH

1 equalized by the payment of cash to the Secretary. The 

2 Secretary shall not be required to equalize the values of 

3 any exchange conducted under this subsection if the land 

4 or interest in land received by the Federal Government 

5 exceeds the value of the Federal land or interest in land 

6 exchanged.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2240 

AN ACT 

To authorize the exchange of land or interest in 

Massachusetts, and for other purposes. and the city of Lowell in the Commonwealth of land between Lowell National Historical Park
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MAX GROSSMAN /CITY O F EL PASO

,

Appellant

,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO /MAX GROSSMAN

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 272

- CV

Appeal from the

3 84th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2017

- DCV2528 )

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on Wednesday, December 24, 2019. Appellant asked for an

extension to file the brief on Friday, December 27, 2019. However, under Tex.R.App.P. 4.1(a),

because the due date fell on a state holiday, and because December 25 and 26 were also state

holidays, the due date for the Appellant's Brief was pushed forward to the next non

- holiday

workday: Friday, December 27, 2019. Appellant timely filed his brief before midnight on Friday,

December 27, 2019. As such, Appellant was already entitled to the relief requested in the motion

for extension of time, rendering the motion moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 th day of December , 2019

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

DOT -OST -1995-272 

formerly Docket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST -2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: September 30, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

dd7ftf(/iaA/2&-

~~ane Workie 

Acting Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Vinh Q. Nguyen 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of September, 2014, a true and correct copy ofthe 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 

Scot Spencer 

22604 Esplanada Circle 

Boca Raton, Florida 33433
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6696

DEON ARNELL TURNER

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

and

JOHN DOE DETAINEES/INMATES; JANE DOE DETAINEES/INMATES

,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TERRY KOKOLIS, Directo r of Talbot County Department of Corrections and Detention Center; KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS; FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER (TRINITY); COMMISSARY SERVICE PROVIDER (KEEFE); HEALTHCARE SERVICE PROVIDER (WELLPATH); TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDER (SECURUS); J OHN DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, (all) individually and in their official capacities; JANE DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, (all) individually and in their official capacities

,

Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Julie R. Rubin , District Judge. ( 1:23

- cv

- 00555

- JRR )

Submitted : March 28 , 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6696 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Deon Arnell Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6696 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:

Deon Arnell Turner appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Tu r ner v. Kokolis

,

No. 1:23

- cv

- 00555

- JRR (D. Md. June 14, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6696 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
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

NATALIYA KYRYLENKO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70590

Agency No. A075-758-576

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Nataliya Kyrylenko, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.

FILED

SEP 26 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70590

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kyrylenko’s motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s

final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kyrylenko failed to establish

materially changed circumstances in Ukraine to qualify for the regulatory

exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed

circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented

at prior hearing).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d

818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, Salomon Sredni, Chief Executive Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TradeStation Group, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|November 5, 2010 |  | /s/ Salomon Sredni     
|Date             |  | Salomon Sredni         
|                 |  | Chief Executive Officer