alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 Certification of 
Principal Executive Officer CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Toni A. Eldred, President and Chief Executive Officer of Coastline Corporate Services, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify that: 1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.     The Company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 Company 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 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 Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5.    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 13, 2009 /s/ Toni A. EldredToni A. Eldred
Principal Executive Officer
MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: April 26, 2011 Meeting with Industries associated with Forest Products and EPA 

on the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

 

On April 26, 2011, EPA met with members of forest product industries to discuss their issues 

and concerns with the final rule entitled, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials 

That are Solid Waste,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 

15456). This is referred to as the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. 

During that meeting, the industry members expressed concerns with the rule’s impact on forest 

industry products (including biomass). They focused on issues with contaminants legitimacy 

criterion. There were specific materials they were concerned with: resinated trim, wastewater 

Treatment Residuals, recycled paper residuals/OCC rejects, urban wood, tire-derived fuel, 

railway ties (creosote), tall oil, turpentine, and other biomass residuals. 

EPA asked clarifying questions regarding the information discussed. 

Attachment:

See the meeting agenda for further details. 

Expected Meeting Attendees:

Industries: 

AFPA (Tim Hunt and Amy Schaeffer) 

Boise Cascade 

Georgia Pacific 

Smurfit 

International Paper 

Composite Panel Association 

Treated Wood Council 
Invited EPA attendees: 

Chair: Suzanne Rudzinski 

Tracy Atagi 

Jim Berlow 

Alan Carpien 

Sandra Connors 

George Faison 

Mike Galbraith 

Mimi Guernica 

John Michaud 

Mary Beth Sheridan 

Matt Straus 

Tab Tesnau 

 Marc Thomas
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000013609-MAY-201110:05 AM
NO. SCWC-29539

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

SHILO WILLIS, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs.

CRAIG SWAIN, FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII, LTD.,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 29539; CIV. NO. 01-1-0467)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, 

and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Chang, 

assigned by reason of vacancy)

The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 7,

2012 by Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Shilo Willis, is hereby

accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties

will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 19, 2012.

Fernando L. Cosio, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Bradford F.K. Bliss,

for respondent /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

 /s/ Gary W.B. Chang

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-29539

19-JUN-2012

10:24 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2794 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2794

To provide for a temporary Federal district judgeship for the southern 
                          district of Indiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2000

  Mr. Bayh (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a temporary Federal district judgeship for the southern 
                          district of Indiana.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the 
southern district of Indiana.
    (b) First Vacancy Not Filled.--The first vacancy in the office of 
district judge in the southern district of Indiana, occurring 7 years 
or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the 
temporary judgeship created under subsection (a), shall not be filled.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 
of this Act, including such sums as may be necessary to provide 
appropriate space and facilities for the judicial position created by 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 451 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 451

                     For the relief of Saeed Rezai.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 1999

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                     For the relief of Saeed Rezai.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Saeed Rezai 
shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the 
United States for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment 
of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Saeed Rezai as provided 
in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer 
to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the total number 
of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SuccessFactors, Inc. (the
Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Bruce Felt, the Chief Financial Officer of SuccessFactors, Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of SuccessFactors, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |                |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Bruce Felt
|                     |  |  |  | Name:          |  | Bruce Felt             
|                     |  |  |  | Title:         |  | Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50178 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus XAVIER LAGRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CR-454-1

- - - - - - - - - - May 31, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Xavier LaGrant appeals the revocation of his release on bond. LaGrant has failed to show, however, that the district court abused its discretion in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging, inter alia , the revocation of his bond. See United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hare , 873 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). LaGrant first violated the conditions of his release by violating the electronic monitoring requirement. He was placed in a halfway house as a result of that violation. While aNo. 01-50178 -2- resident at the halfway house, LaGrant consumed alcohol, a violation of the house rules and of his conditions of release. His bond was revoked on the basis that he had violated a condition of release and was unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1) and (2). Instead of challenging the magistrate judge’s revocation of his bond, LaGrant filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. LaGrant does not contest the factual finding that he consumed alcohol while a resident at the halfway house. He argues that this violation was insufficient to warrant revocation of his bond. The argument lacks merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying LaGrant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the revocation of his bond.
AFFIRMED.
#### State of Iowa v. E. Stanley, Appellant.

Conviction: Review on appeal. Where defendant was identified by 1 the complaining witness, and relies on testimony of himself and four companions, going to establish an alibi, under circumstances tending to show their bad character and associations, the conviction will not be set aside on appeal.

Included offenses: *Instructions.*The defendant in a prosecution for robbery, cannot complain that the question of his guilt of the 2 crime charged in the indictment, only, was submitted without any reference to included offenses, where there was no ground to suppose that the crime was committed otherwise than as described, by the prosecuting witness, and the robbery was uncon-troverted, except by defendant’s denial of his presence; especially where such submission was requested by defendant’s counsel and acquiesced in by the state.

*Appeal from Woodbury District Court.*— 1HoN. T. E. Oliver, Judge.

Friday, October 6, 1899.

*143The defendant, having been indicted and convicted of robbery, *appeals.*

Affirmed.-

Lade, J.-

The accused was identified by Faeth as the person who compelled him, at the point of a revolver, to hold np his hands, and submit to having fourteen dollars tahen from his pockets. This was put in issue by the defendant 1 and four others, who testified to having passed 'the entire night in another part of the city carousing. In view of the character ‘and associations of these witnesses, as disclosed by the evidence, we are not inclined-to question the conclusion reached by the jury.

At the request of the defendant’s counsel, acquiesced in by the state, the co-urt only submitted the issue of guilt of the crime charged in the indictment, and omitted all reference 2 to the included offenses. There was no ground to suppose that, if the money was taken at all, it was obtained in a manner other than that described by Faeth. The fact of robbery by some one was not controverted, save in defendant’s denial of having been present. If, then, he took the money, the act was robbery, and nothing less. *State v. Reasby,*100 Iowa, 231. Under the circumstances disclosed, the defendant cannot be heard to complain.— *Affirmed.*
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING **201 6**  **WY 115**  **October Term, A.D. 201**  **6 November 30, 2016**  **WILLIAM KENNETH HALL, Appellant**  **(Defendant),**
**v. THE STATE OF WYOMING,**  **Appellee (Plaintiff).**  **S -**  **16 -** **0178**



### O **RDER** 

### A**FFIRMING THE**  

### D **ISTRICT** 

### C **OURT** 

### ’ **S** 

### J**U DGMENT**  **AND** 

### S **ENTENCE** [¶ 1 ] **This matter**  came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that A ppellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to five felonies: two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree; one count of immoral or indecent acts; and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree
. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6
-2
- 3 15 (a)(i) ; § 14
- 3
- 105(a); and § 6
-2
- 304(a)(i)
. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s June 13 , 201 6 , “Judgment and Sentenc e .” [¶2] On September 7, 2016, Appellant’s court- appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 7 38, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The same day, this Court entered an “Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief.” This Court ordered that Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like this Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” Later, this Court granted Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his brief. This Court ordered that Appellant could file a pro se brief on or before November 21, 2016.[¶3] This Court notes that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief or other pleading in the

time allotted. However, on November 17, he filed a letter indicating he desired to withdraw his appeal “unless this Court is willing to appoint an attorney who can actually perform the necessary investigation to acquire the evidence to support my claims .” After careful consideration of the letter, the Court finds it cannot accept such an equivocal withdrawal of an appeal , especially when the withdrawal does not satisfy the requirements of W.R.A.P. 18
. [¶4 ] Now, f

ollowing a careful review of the record and the “ Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s June 13, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed
. It is, therefore, [¶5 ] **ORDERED** that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court- appointed counsel for A ppellant, William Kenneth Hall , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for A

ppellant; and it is further [¶6 ] **ORDERED** that the district c ourt’s June 13, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. [¶7] **DATED** this 3 0 th day of Novem ber, 201 6
. **BY THE COURT:** /s/ **E. J A** **MES BUR KE**  **Chief Justice**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,230
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                         1,935
<OTHER-SE>                                         600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,470
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,780)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
99.14











CONSENT OF GEOLOGIST





Ladies and
Gentlemen:





The undersigned
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, 2019








Per:


(signed) "Allan
Armitage"


___________________________


Name: Allan
Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geo.


Title: Senior
Resource Geologist


SGS
Geostat
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

MICHAEL ANTHONY LoRUSSO,

Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 2D22-1773
September 16, 2022 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge. Michael Anthony LoRusso, pro se. ORDER RESTRICTING APPELLANT FROM FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PER CURIAM. On July 19, 2022, this court dismissed this appeal as untimely filed and issued an order detailing Appellant's initiation of over thirty proceedings in this court related to his judgment and2

sentence in Pinellas County Circuit Court case 20-04126-CF. The order directed Appellant to show cause why this court should not direct the clerk to reject pleadings in this court related to Pinellas County Circuit Court case 20-04126-CF unless the filing is related to a pending proceeding or submitted by a licensed Florida attorney. See State v. Spencer

, 751 So. 2d 47, 48–49 (Fla. 1999). Appellant's response is unavailing as it fails to justify his meritless and repetitive filings. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to place in an inactive file any original proceedings or notices of appeal filed by Appellant related to the lower tribunal case number listed in this order unless the filing is signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See id
.
NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-60753 Summary Calendar

_____________________

DANA MICHELE RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; HARVEY MOHESKY, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:97-CV-183-BB)

_________________________________________________________________
May 5, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dana Michele Randolph appeals the summary judgment dismissing

her claims against her former employer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and

regional manage r Harvey Mohesky, for violations of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. , and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206,

and the dismissal without prejudice of her state law claims for

intentional and n egligent infliction of emotional distress and

tortious interference with a business relationship. Randolph

contends that she presented evidence establishin g material fact

issues regarding whether the defendants treated similarly situated- 2 -

males differently and whether Wal-Mart’s stated reason for

discharging her was pretextual. (Assuming summary judgment was

proper, Randolph does not contest the dismissal without prejudice

of her state law claims.)

Pursuant to F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56, and viewing the summary judgment

evidence in the light most favorable to Randolph, there is no

material fact iss ue regarding whether Randolph was discharged on

the basis of her sex, or whether sh e received less pay than

similarly situated male employees. Accordingly, granting summary

judgment for the defendants on the Title VII and Equal Pay Act

claims was pr oper, essentially for the reasons stated by the

distr ict court. R andolph v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

, No. 3:97-CV183-B-A (N.D. Miss. Oct. 30, 1998) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED
845.496