alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Joe K. McArthur, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certifythat:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SouthFirstBancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
 b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transitioninstructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   August 16, 2004 /s/ Joe K. McArthur
#### In the Matter of Anna Briggs, Petitioner, v Elaine Lord, as Superintendent of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

January 5, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael Raskin*for petitioner. *Robert Abrams, Attorney-General,*for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

John C. Marbach, J.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks to annul and expunge from her record the results of a disciplinary hearing which found her guilty of misconduct.

Among the contentions made in support of the petition is the claim that petitioner’s right to call witnesses in her defense was violated by the Hearing Officer’s failure to secure the testimony of an inmate who would allegedly have given exculpatory evidence. That inmate, one Ms. Miller, stated to *422the authorities that she "did not want to be involved”. No other reason for her refusal to testify appears on the record and petitioner argues, and the court agrees, that the mere desires of a witness not to be involved is an insufficient reason, judged by the relevant regulations, for failure to obtain the witness’ testimony *(Matter of Coleman v Coombe,*65 NY2d 777). The Hearing Officer’s failure to provide a substantial reason for Ms. Miller’s failure to testify, and the additional failure to explain why no apparent effort was made to interview Miller confidentially amount to a denial of the rights afforded petitioner under the regulations *(Matter of Barnes v LeFevre,*69 NY2d 649). The violations of regulations, when viewed in the light of the rather insubstantial inculpatory evidence, amount to a denial of due process and mandate the expunging of the finding of guilt made as a result of the hearing.

The petition is granted.
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 02:30 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US                                                                                                                 
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov                                                                                                               
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ 
Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                          |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/10/2010 02:15 PM                                                                                                                       
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |SI RICE NESHAP preamble/reg                                                                                                               
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|




Hi Cortney,
Attached is the latest version.  It shows the changes we have made since 
yesterday based on OMB's comments, and also some edits to correct typos and 
other minor errors that we found.
(See attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg 8-10-10 redline.doc)(See 
attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg
8-10-10.doc)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:  (919) 541-2469
Fax:       (919) 541-5450
king.melanie@epa.gov
#### N. S. Kenyon, Appellant, v. B. F. Baker *et al.,*Appellees.

Judgments : Correction op errors.

*Appeal from Jasper District Court*— I-Ion. W. R. Lewis, Judge.

Monday, February 2, 1891.

This is a proceeding by motion asking that judgment be rendered against the defendants in an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage to ■which they were made defendants, but no judgment was rendered against them in the final decree. The motion was overruled, judgment being rendered against plaintiff for *costs.*

Affirmed.

*Alanson Ciarle,*for appellant.

*Kerr & McElroy*and *Phillips & Day,*for appellees.

Beck, C. J.

I. Plaintiff brought his action in chancery to foreclose a chattel mortgage executed by one Trammel upon fifty head of cattle. Wilson and Baker were made defendants, the petition alleging that they‘had become purchasers .of the cattle; asked that, if the cattle be not found, judgment be rendered against Wilson & Baker for the value‘of the mortgaged property. A trial was had, and the mortgage was foreclosed and declared to be a lien upon the cattle purchased by defendants Baker and Wilson, but no personal judgment was rendered against them. The decree of foreclosure was rendered in September, 1885. The motion before us was made in the district court in August, 1887, and the decision overruling it, which is appealed from, was made in November. 1888.

II. The motion before us is, in effect, an attempt to correct an error in the original decree, or is in the nature of a supplemental proceeding to obtain relief which the plaintiff sought in the original action, and which was denied by the final decree in the case. It is plain that this attempt must fail. The plaintiff sought a judgment against the defendants in the original petition. Defenses to the action as to defendants were pleaded. The issues of the case involve the plaintiff’s right to recover against the defendants. They could have been determined on the trial, and we shall presume they were determined against the plaintiff. The decree is to be regarded as an adjudication upon these issues, which the plaintiff cannot have reviewed and set aside by this new proceeding by motion for alleged errors in the proceedings. Parties cannot in this manner relitigate issues or raise new ones in cases wherein final judgments have been rendered. Were not these familiar rules adhered to, there would be no end to litigation. But the policy of the law is to secure its speedy end. *Bicklin v. Kendall,*72 Iowa, 490.

, These views lead us to the conclusion that the judgment of the district court ought to be affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85972-85973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25119]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, 
comments received will be made available without change and will not be 
modified to remove personal or business information including 
confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments 
should not include any information such as confidential information 
that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than November 29, 2024.

[[Page 85973]]

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, Mergers & 
Acquisitions) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6724080a0a02091314490617170b0e0406130e0809142703060b4901150549081500"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="084b6765656d667c7b2669787864616b697c6167667b486c6964266e7a6a26677a6f">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. First Liberty National Bancshares, Inc., Liberty, Texas; to 
acquire Pearland State Bank, Pearland, Texas, and First National Bank 
of Alvin, Alvin, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-25119 Filed 10-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7127** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHUNGA HAKI MATATA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Shelby
. Lacy H. Thornburg , District Judge. ( 4:94

- cr - 00044

- LHT

- 12 )

Submitted : April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE , Circuit Judge s .
Affirmed by un published per curi am opinion

. Chunga Haki Matata, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chunga Haki Matata seeks to a ppeal the district
court ’ s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order reducing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006)
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the di strict
court. United States v. Matata , No. 4:94

- cr - 00044

- LHT

- 12 (W.D.N.C. May 14, 2009) **.** We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci sional process.
AFFIRMED
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Hogan, Appellant.

Appeal: record: abstract.

*Appeal from Plymouth District Court.*— Hon. Scott M. Ladd, Judge.

Monday, June 2, 1890.

The defendant was indicted and convicted for the crime of seduc tion, and appeals to this court.

Ho appearance for either party.

Beck, J.

The cause was submitted to us upon a printed abstract. It is not alleged, nor shown, that it contains an abstract of all the record. It contains the certificate of the judge, or the statement in the bill of exceptions, that all the evidence, proceedings and rulings in the case are therein set out, or referred to in the bill of exceptions. No transcript of the record of the case has been filed in this court. We have often ruled that the printing in the abstract the certificate found in the bill of exceptions will not show that the abstract contains all the record set out in the bill of exceptions. There is no agreement that the abstract contains all the record, evidence and proceedings in the case. The case is not in a condition to be reviewed here, as we have not before us the record, or an abstract of all the rulings, proceedings and evidence found therein.

The judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Elie S. Akilian, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Inet Technologies, Inc.;

 

2.              Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.              Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.              The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

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

 

(c)        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.              The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  January 30, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Elie S.  Akilian                  |
|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Elie S. Akilian                       |
|                              |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
APPENDIX A-5
 

DEFAULT VARIABLES: ABBREVIATIONS, UNITS, AND VALUES
 
Variable Abbreviation* Units Value 

U m/sec 4 

F(X) dimensionless 1.33 

Vf dimensionless 0 

k (<=10um) dimensionless 0.36 

k (<=30um) dimensionless 0.8 

s percent 8 

S km/hr 24 

W tons 15 

w wheels/vehicle 6 

Np days/year 90 

Kp (<=10mm) dimensionless 0.36 

Kp (>= 10mm; <=30mm) dimensionless 0.73 

DH m 2 

M percent 1 

Yd m3 10 

F dimensionless 0.15 

a dimensionless 32.093 

b dimensionless 0.81066 

p dimensionless 68.26 

q dimensionless 0.919 

vd m/sec 0.03 

ρb kg/m3 1450 

t m 0.01 

Cs g/m3 0 

d m 0.1524 

PT dimensionless 0.4 

Pa dimensionless 0.4 

T K 298 

R atm-m3

/mol-K 8.21E-05 

U10 m/sec 5.73 

Dether cm2

/sec 8.56E-06 

ma gm/cm-sec 0.000181 

ra g/cm3 0.0012 

RF 1/year 300 

Kef tons/acre 0.3 

CM dimensionless 1 

P dimensionless 1 

D m 100 

Vstream (2nd order) L/year 3.40E+11 

Vstream (5th order) L/year 3.30E+09 

TR dimensionless 1.00E-05 

AT (carcinogens) years 75 

A-5-1 
Variable Abbreviation* Units Value 

EF days/year 350 

IFWadj L-year/kg-day 1.07 

ED days/year 30 

CR (water) L/day 2 

BW (adult) kg 72 

tevent (adult) hours/event 0.25 

tevent (child) hours/event 0.33 

BW (child) kg 15 

EV events/day 1 

Askin (adult) cm2 20000 

Askin (child) cm2 7900 

IFAadj m3

-year/kg-day 11.5 

ETcomp (shower) days/shower 0.00792 

ETcomp (bathroom) days/shower 0.0338 

ETcomp (house) days/shower 0.625 

VRcomp (shower) m3

/hour 6 

VRcomp (bathroom) m3

/hour 18 

VRcomp (house) m3

/hour 140 

Wcomp (shower) L/hour 330 

Wcomp (bathroom) L/hour 330 

Wcomp (house) L/hour 8.4 

ΦRn dimensionless 0.7 

C (m2

/sec)-2/3 2.00E+06 

CRfish kg/day 0.02 

Fc dimensionless 1 

Finhal percent 0.125 

IR m3

/day 20 

IFSadj mg-year/kg-day 113 

CRsoil mg/day 200 

ED (child) years 6 

THQ dimensionless 0.1 

AT (non-carcinogens) 

ρdb 

Θw 

Θa 

foc 

n 

ρs 

years 

kg/L 

Lwater/Lsoil 

Lair/Lsoil 

g/g 

Lpore/Lsoil 

kg/L 

30 

1.5 

0.15 

0.28 

0.006 

0.43 

2.65 

* For names of variables see the Table of Contents 

A-5-2
STN Easy: Easy Search Main Page

Display Page

Easy Search

Advanced Search

CAS Number Search

Patent Lookup

Defined Searches

Review Saved Items

+ Help

Session Cost

Price List

Preferences

Search History

+ Cust. Support

Comments

Log Off

Display

Page

Display without Links | Return to Results

Display from REGISTRY

ANSWER 1 © 2011 ACS on STN

CAS Registry Number

 

Chemical Name

 

 

 

 

 

Molecular Formula

 

Search for information related to CAS RN in these categories:

Agriculture [$2.00]

Biotechnology [$2.00]

Chemical Catalogs [$2.00]

Chemical Substances [$2.00]

Chemistry References [$2.00]

Restricted to: NO RESTRICTIONS

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

Preparation

Industrial Manufacture

Synthetic Preparation

Formation, Nonpreparative

Purification

-------------- General Science [$2.00]

Life Sciences [$2.00]

Patents [$2.00]

Patents, Full Text [$2.00]

Patents, National [$2.00]

Pharmacology [$2.00]

Physics [$2.00]

Regulated Chemical Lists [$2.00]

Toxicology [$2.00]

with 
STN Easy: Easy Search Main Page
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K REPORT  OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C.
SS.SS. 1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation.

Date:
March 31, 2011

/s/ STEVEN J. JANUSEK Steven J. Janusek, Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-K to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks