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

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                 DISCLOSURE IN THE REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL REPORT



I, Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer of Ameritrans Capital Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this  annual report on Form 10-k of Ameritrans Capital
Corporation (the "report");

2. Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;

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

4. I am 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 me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the report
(evaluation date); and

(c) Presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the evaluation
date.

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 weakness 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. I have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weakness.


Dated: September 28, 2004



                       /s/ GARY C. GRANOFF
                       --------------------------------------
                       GARY C. GRANOFF
                       PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12270

JAMES RIVA vs. MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD.

August 18, 2017.

Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior 

courts. Parole. Practice, Criminal, Discovery.

The petitioner, James Riva, appeals from a judgment of a 

single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 

G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

Riva is currently serving a life sentence for second degree 

murder. After the parole board (board) denied him parole in 

January, 2015, he filed a complaint in the Superior Court 

seeking certiorari review and a declaratory judgment in 

connection with claimed constitutional violations that occurred 

in the course of the proceedings before the board. The board's 

motion to dismiss the complaint was allowed as to the 

declaratory judgment claim but denied as to the certiorari 

claim. Riva's subsequently-filed motion to compel discovery was 

initially denied, but, on Riva's motion for reconsideration, the 

motion judge indicated that the motion was allowed "to the 

extent that the administrative record shall reflect the evidence 

relied upon by the parole board to issue its decision." Riva 

then filed a "motion for relief," which also pertained to 

certain discovery. After this motion was denied, Riva filed his 

G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court. In the 

petition, he argued that his case could not proceed in the trial 

court without the requested discovery. The single justice 

denied the petition without a hearing.

The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 

amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that 

"review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be 
2

obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial 

court or by other available means." S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Riva 

has not made, and cannot make, such a showing. He argues that 

the board has been "allowed" to "disobey a compelled discovery 

order" and that, essentially, if the board is allowed to 

continue to do so, the issue will eventually become moot by the 

time he is again eligible for parole. There is no reason, 

however, why the rulings related to discovery cannot adequately 

be addressed in an appeal from any adverse judgment, including 

the mootness issue. See, e.g., Madison v. Commonwealth, 466 

Mass. 1033, 1033 (2013), and cases cited.

The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 

denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Judgment affirmed.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 

a memorandum of law.

James Riva, pro se.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24473]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 24, 2024.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7B, 1775 Duke Street, (All visitors 
must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Board Briefing, Cybersecurity Update.
    2. Board Briefing, New Charter and Field of Membership Update

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 
Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-24473 Filed 10-18-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

Int. Cl.: 5                          [LOGO]

Prior U.S. Cl.: 6

                                                              Reg. No. 1,917,134
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                Registered Sep. 5, 1995


                                   TRADEMARK
                               PRINCIPAL REGISTER


                                    VERIDIEN


VERIDIEN CORPORATION (DELAWARE CORPORATION)
11800 28TH STREET
ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33716

FOR: PHARMACEUTICAL AND SANITARY SUBSTANCES, NAMELY, STERILANT, DISINFECTANT
AND SANITIZER FOR ALL PURPOSES IN CLASS 5 (U.S. CL 6).

FIRST USE 8-0-1991; IN COMMERCE 8-0-1991.

SN 74-198,065, FILED 8-26-1991.

LYNN A LUTHEY, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
REFRIGERANT SOLUTIONS LIMITED 

 8 Murieston Road, Hale, Altrincham, Cheshire WA15 9ST 

Tel: (+44)(0)161 926 9876 Fax: (+44)(0)161 926 9875 

Mob: 07785 242552 E-mail: rs@refsols.com 

Web: www.refsols.com 

Our ref: JEP/nb 

Date: 26 October 2011 

Melissa Fiffer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Alternatives & Emissions Reduction Branch 

Stratosphere Protection Division 

Office of Air & Radiation 

Washington D.C.20460 

USA 

Dear Melissa Fiffer,, 

SNAP APPLICATION FOR RS-50 REFRIGERANT BLEND 

I refer to your letter dated 24 October in which you advise that you have found our 

application for RS-50 refrigerant blend incomplete. 

I will address the two items you listed in your letter as follows: 

 (1) To avoid any confusion, I attach two submissions: 

(a) One with CBI. I have also provided explanation for claiming CBI, which as you 

can see is for commercial & competitive reasons where claimed. 

(b) One without CBI. This version is for the public record & has taken out the data 

which is being claimed as CBI. 

(2) I am not at all clear what you mean with regard to clarification on the fractionation 

analysis. The flammability tests & fractionation analysis were conducted by an 

external laboratory in the US, which were used for our application to obtain a 

refrigerant number & safety classification from the ASHRAE. There is no reference 

in these tests to “component ranged from 2 to 25% of the blend”. May be you can 

clarify please exactly what you require here. As part of the ASHRAE application 

process, as you no doubt are well aware, flammability & fractionation testing need to 

be carried out according to Standard 34, & the data I sent with the RS-50 application 

is exactly the same data used for the ASHRAE application. 
2

2

In answer to your question about our application to ASHRAE for a refrigerant 

number, I confirm that ASHRAE at their sub committee meetings in June 2011 

designated a refrigerant number for RS-50 of R442A with a safety classification of 

A1 (ie low toxicity & non flammable), which then proceeds to Public Review before 

final approval. 

Please let me know if you need any more information for your review of RS-50 to be 

completed. 

Yours sincerely, 

J E Poole
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7497

ARONTE DARNESIO JARVIS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:20

- cv - 00424

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Aronte Darnesio Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7497 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Aronte Darnesio Jarvis seeks to app eal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimel y Jarvis’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- y ear statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certifica te of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the disposit ive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jarvis 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7497 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# L_2012334EN.01004601.xml

| 6.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 334/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 334/46

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EULEX KOSOVO/3/2012

of 4 December 2012

on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO

(2012/751/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (1), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP establishing the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP establishing the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO.

| (2) | On 5 June 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/291/CFSP (2) amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP and extending the duration of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 5 June 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/291/CFSP (2) amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP and extending the duration of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 June 2014.

| (3) | Pursuant to Article 12(2) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO, including decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Pursuant to Article 12(2) of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO, including decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission.

| (4) | On 20 November 2012, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Ambassador Bernd BORCHARDT as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO from 1 February 2013, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 20 November 2012, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Ambassador Bernd BORCHARDT as Head of Mission of EULEX KOSOVO from 1 February 2013,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ambassador Bernd BORCHARDT is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO, with effect from 1 February 2013.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply until 14 June 2014.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2012.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

O. SKOOG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 42, 16.2.2008, p. 92.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 146, 6.6.2012, p. 46.

2

---
Exhibit 12.1  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preference Dividends  Year ended June 30,20082007200620052004Earnings:Net increase (decrease) in net assets from operations$
(537,571)$
199,072$ (323,980)$
258,908$
(386,464)Fixed charges2,398,6542,158,6792,157,9051,885,6891,503,429Adjusted earnings$
1,861,083$
2,357,751$
1,833,925$
2,144,597$
1,116,965Fixed charges:Interest expense$
2,357,540$
2,117,675$
2,116,903$
1,837,633$
1,443,416Amortization of deferred loan costs41,11441,00441,00248,05660,013Total fixed charges2,398,6542,158,6792,157,9051,885,6891,503,429Preference dividends337,500337,500337,500337,500337,500Total fixed charges and preference dividends$
2,736,154$
2,496,179$
2,495,405$
2,223,189$
1,840,929Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preference dividends0.680.940.730.960.61Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges and preference dividends 
(less than 1:1 ratio)$
875,071$
138,428$
661,480$
78,592$
723,964   W:\AMERITRANS\SEC filings\10-K's\2008-10-K\Exhibit 12.1.doc
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tatei) <!Court of §ppeali) 

for tbe jf eberaI <!Circuit 

TAYLOR RUSSELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF 

AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

2011-1230 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Califomia in case no. 09-CV-3239, 

Judge William H. Alsup. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

Deepak Gupta moves to withdraw as counsel for the 

appellant, Taylor Russell. The court notes that counsel 

never filed an entry of appearance in this appeal. Therefore, the motion is unnecessary. 

L-________________ -

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 
RUSSELL v. US 

The motion is moot. 

JUt. 62011 

Date 

cc: S. Chandler Visher, Esq. 

s21 

Deepak Gupta, Esq. 

Alicia M. Hunt, Esq. 

FOR THE COURT 

lsI Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

2 

FILED II.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

JUL 062011
EX-10.82



 Exhibit 10.82 

Schedule of Executive Officer Compensation 

The following is a summary of the compensation of the executive officers of Adept Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) in effect as of the date of
filing the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. 
  

									
	 Current Executive Officers
	  	Annual Base
Salary	 	  	Fiscal 2015
Incentive
Compensation	 	Other Annual
Compensation (2)
	 Rob Cain

President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	325,000	  	  	(1)	 	Health care coverage; long-
term disability and group
term life insurance excess
premiums; 401(k) match
		  				  		 	
	 Seth Halio

Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	245,000	  	  	(1)	 	Health care coverage; long-
term disability and group
term life insurance excess
premiums; 401(k) match
		  				  		 	
	 Terry Hannon

Chief Business Development and Strategy

Officer
	  	$	275,000	  	  	(1)	 	Health care coverage; long-
term disability and group
term life insurance excess
premiums; 401(k) match

 (1) Pursuant to participation in, and subject to terms of, the Fiscal 2015 Management Incentive Plan. 

(2) Other benefits to be provided by the Company to the identified executive officer. Equity awards have been granted to the executive officers pursuant to
option agreements and restricted stock agreements, the forms of which have been approved by the Compensation Committee and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

| 1. | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31,                2007, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the period ending August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Supportspan, Inc. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                October 1, 2007                                                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                       |
| */s/                D. Chad Allison       *                             |
| D.                Chad AllisonChief                Executive OfficerChief                Financial Officer |
Exhibit
99.16





CONSENT





Ladies and
Gentlemen:





The undersigned
company hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigned
company’s name included or incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection
with the report entitled “Technical Report with an Updated
Mineral Resource Estimate for the Waterbury Lake Property, Northern
Saskatchewan” dated December 21, 2018, and (2) all other
references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.





Dated: 
March 13, 2020








GEOVECTOR
MANAGEMENT INC.





By:    
(signed) Alan Sexton


Name: Alan
Sexton


Title: VP Project
Management
#### Trempealeau County, Appellant, vs. Marsh and another, Respondents.

*February 16*

March *29, 1948.*

*279The cause was submitted for the appellant on .the briefs of the *Attorney General, Stewart G. Honeck,*deputy attorney general, and *Lavern Kostner,*district attorney of Trempealeau county, and for the respondents on the brief of *C. E. Fugina*of Arcadia.

Fairchild, J.

The ruling denying, costs w,as contrary to the provisions of sec. 32.11, Stats. 1945. That section provides that in an appeal taken by a party to a condemnation proceeding, “Costs shall be allowed to the successful party on the appeal.” The respondents were successful before the county judge in their attempt to increase the amount due them over the original award of $437, but on the appeal from the county to the circuit court, there was a reduction of the damages from the $800, which the county judge had awarded, to $750. In the circuit court proceeding the appellant county was therefore the successful party. *Washburn v. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago R. R. Co.*(1884) 59 Wis. 364, 378, 18 N. W. 328.

The trial court evidently was prompted to disallow costs to the prevailing party in circuit court because of circumstances intervening between the original award by the highway commission of $437 and the final assessment by the jury in circuit court of $750. However, in this situation the statute confers no such discretion upon the court as to the allowance of costs. Therefore the denial of costs and disbursements to appellant was error.

*By the Court.*— The part of the judgment appealed from is reversed. Cause remanded with direction to allow appel- . lánt its costs in accordance with this opinion.

Barlow, *].,*took no part.