alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule 15d-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
I, Evan Jones, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Digene Corporation;
     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 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 this report;
     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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
     5. 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 the auditcommittee 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 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: May 9, 2005      /s/ Evan Jones      Name: Evan Jones   Title: Chief Executive Officer
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 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         December 18, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Library of Medicine, Division of Extramural Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Milton Corn, MD, Associate Director, Office of Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, One Rockledge Centre, Suite 301, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 6075, Bethesda, MD 20892-6075, 301-496-4621.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 30, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-31196 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1017 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1017

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
                        such care and services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiropractic Care Available to All 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO 
              VETERANS.

    Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The program''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 medical 
centers by not later than December 31, 2011, and at all medical centers 
by not later than December 31, 2013.''.

SEC. 3. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE TO VETERANS.

    (a) Medical Services.--Paragraph (6) of section 1701 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
            ``(H) Chiropractic services.''.
    (b) Rehabilitative Services.--Paragraph (8) of such section is 
amended by inserting ``chiropractic,'' after ``counseling,''.
    (c) Preventive Health Services.--Paragraph (9) of such section is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
        subparagraphs (G) through (L), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
        subparagraph (F):
            ``(F) periodic and preventative chiropractic examinations 
        and services;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1017

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
                        such care and services.
```
#### Ex parte J. L. McAFEE.

No. 7424.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 22, 1939.

Smith, Goldsmith & Bagby, of Austin, and Taylor & Storey and Hurst, Leak & Burke all of Longview, for relator.

Oscar B. Jones, Dist. Atty., M. Neal Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Wynne & Wynne, Angus Wynne, William A. Wade, and Henry H. Harbour, all of Longview, for the State.

F. B. Davenport, of Dallas, amicus curiae.

CRITZ, Justice.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding. It is a companion case to Ex parte Henry, 126 S.W.2d 1, this day decided by this Court. The facts involved in this case are, in law, the same as the facts involved in the Henry case. -The law questions involved in the two cases are also the same. The relator here is enlarged for the reasons set forth in our opinion in the Henry case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          56,736
<SECURITIES>                                    58,740
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (223)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,323
<PP&E>                                           7,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,480)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,903
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                     117,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,759
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,966
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   203
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,076)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,076)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,076)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.65)


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 42762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18196]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Final Written Re-Evaluation for Environmental Impact Statement: 
Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Stratford, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
Writetn Re-Evaluation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
has been completed for Sikorsky Memorial Airport in Stratford, 
Connecticut.

ADDRESSES: The Written Re-Evaluation document is available for review 
during normal business hours at the following locations:

FAA New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 
781-238-7613.
Stratford Public Library, 2203 Main St., Stratford, CT, 203-385-4161.
Bridgeport Public Library, Borroughs Bldg., 925 Broad St., Bridegport, 
CT, 203-576-7777.
Igor Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Administration Bldg., 1000 Great Meadow 
Dr., Stratford, CT, 203-576-8162.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Environmental 
Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration New England, 12 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. (781) 238-7613.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In October 1999 the FAA issued a Record of 
Decision (ROD) approving actions associated with proposed improvments 
to the Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Stratford, Connecticut. That ROD was 
based on information and analysis contained in a Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) that the FAA issued in May 1999. No action was 
taken on the October 1999 ROD. Recently, the FAA evaluated the 
suitability of applying the May 1999 FEIS to a substantially similar 
project at Sikorsky Memorial Airport involving Runway Safety Areas and 
other airfield improvements. This Written Re-Evaluation documents the 
FAA's assessment of the suitability of using the information and 
analysis in the May 1999 FEIS for the current project.
    A Record of Decision is anticipated, no sooner than 30 days from 
this notice.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 1, 2011.
Michel Hovan,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-18196 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      15,944,446
<SECURITIES>                                 9,033,958
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,283,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                    61,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,841,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,274,186
<PP&E>                                       3,195,597
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,216,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,431,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,945,566
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       113,417
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,169,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,431,963
<SALES>                                      3,818,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,212,848
<CGS>                                        1,548,786
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,283,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,904,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,904,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,904,412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15-10351

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9 :14-cr-80117-KLR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDDY WILMER VAIL-BAILON, Defendant - Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A petition for rehearing en banc having been filed, a member of this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en banc, and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having voted in Case: 15-10351 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 2favor of granting rehearing en banc, it is ORDERED that this case will be reheard en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED. Case: 15-10351 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 2 of 2
First Amendment of McDonald's Corporation Severance Plan



 EXHIBIT (10)(m)(i) 
 First Amendment of 
 McDonald’s Corporation Severance Plan 
 The McDonald’s Corporation Severance Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of October 1, 2008 by adding the attached Schedule I to the
Plan. 
 Except for this addition of Schedule I, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Executed in multiple originals this 21st day of October, 2008. 
  

			
	 McDONALD’S CORPORATION

		
	 By
	 	 /s/ Richard Floersch

	 Its Corporate Executive Vice President and
 Chief Human Resources Officer










 Schedule I: 
 Severance Benefits for 
 Qualifying McOpCo Restaurant Managers & Shared Restaurant Support Employees

 This Schedule sets forth the Severance Benefits under the Plan for each Qualifying Employee (1) who is salaried Restaurant Manager (including a
salaried assistant manager) or a full time salaried or hourly Shared Restaurant Support Employee (as determined by the Plan Administrator) before his or her Termination Date, (2) whose Covered Termination occurs as a result of the elimination
of his or her job because of the sale of one or more restaurants, and (3) who is either (i) not offered employment with the purchasing Operator of the restaurant or (ii) offered employment (x) with a level of responsibility not
comparable to his or her job that was eliminated (as determined by the Plan Administrator in his or her sole discretion), (y) at a rate of monthly Base Pay less than 80% of his or her rate of monthly Base Pay immediately before the Termination
Date, or (z) at a location more than 35 miles from the location of his or her eliminated job. 
 Weeks of Severance: Each Qualifying Employee
covered by this Schedule shall be credited with four (4) Weeks of Severance. 
 Severance Pay: Each Qualifying Employee shall receive
Severance Pay in a lump sum in an amount equal to his or her Weekly Base Pay multiplied by his or her Weeks of Severance. 
 Medical/Dental Coverage:
The Employers shall make the payments for COBRA Premiums provided for in Section 4.2 of the Plan during the Qualifying Employee’s Severance Period (4 weeks). 
 Company Vehicle: Section 4.7 of the Plan shall apply to each Qualifying Employee who has a company-provided vehicle. 
 Other Severance Benefits: A Qualifying Employee shall also receive, if otherwise eligible, the Severance Benefits provided for in Section 4.4 (equity awards) and Section 4.5 (sabbatical), but shall not receive the Severance
Benefits provided for in Section 4.3 (outplacement) of the Plan.
#### MASON v. STATE.

No. 20948.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling whisky in Brown County, Texas, which is alleged to have been dry area; punishment assessed being a fine of $175.

The appeal must be dismissed because of a defective recognizance, wherein it is recited that appellant had been convicted of the “offense of selling liquor.” Selling; liquor is not an offense unless it be done in dry territory. There is no recital in the recognizance that appellant had been convicted of a misdemeanor as is set out in Article 831, C.C.P.

The same defect appears in this cause as in I. B. Burns, Sr., v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 175, opinion dismissing appeal of this date, and the appeal in the present cause is dismissed for the same reason.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1041

ELLA ROANE FORTUNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KINGS DOMINION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00786-HEH)

Submitted: April 18, 2019 Decided: April 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ella Roane Fortune, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ella Roane Fortune seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Here, the district 

court concluded that Fortune failed to state a claim because she did not allege that she 

was terminated from Kings Dominion as a result of unlawful discrimination and did not 

identify a federal statute or cause of action under which she might be entitled to relief. 

Because these deficiencies may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we 

conclude that the order Fortune seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 

623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 

1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to 

the district court with instructions to allow Fortune to file an amended complaint. We 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED