alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jeffrey A. Rich, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Affiliated ComputerServices, Inc.;
2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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)   [Intentionally omitted]
(c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.   The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (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.   Date: September 17, 2003. /s/ Jeffrey A. Rich    Jeffrey A. Rich
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 87884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25649]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Collaborative and Innovative 
Acceleration Award (CCIA) Review.
    Date: February 20, 2025.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, 
MD 20892 (Virtual).
    Contact Person: Jing Chen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Suite 1E504, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3268, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8bbb0bdb6b2b1b6bf98b5b9b1b4f6b6b1b0f6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="07646f62696d6e6960476a666e6b29696e6f29606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 30, 2024.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-25649 Filed 11-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED FINDINGS

PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 40001(c), 40703, 40727, 40727.2, 40728.5 and 40920.6(a) FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 70,

STORAGE AND TRANSFER OF GASOLINE

1. NECESSITY: Proposed amendments to Rule 70 are needed to provide an exemption from Phase II vapor recovery for facilities servicing fleets with a 95 percent penetration of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and facilities dispensing E85 fuel. Phase II vapor recovery provides no additional ROC reduction at ORVR facilities. Phase II vapor recovery is not available for E85.

2. AUTHORITY: The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District is authorized and required by the California Health and Safety Code Division 26, Part 3, Sections 40000 and 40001, to adopt and enforce rules and regulations to meet and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

3. CLARITY: These amendments can be easily understood by the persons directly affected by them.

4. CONSISTENCY: These amendments are in harmony and do not conflict with or contradict existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations.

5. NONDUPLICATION: The proposed amended rule does not impose the same requirements as an existing state or federal regulation.

6. REFERENCE: California Health and Safety Code Division 26, Part 3, Section 40702 will be implemented by the adoption of proposed
amendments to Rule 70.

7. COST EFFECTIVENESS, INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS, AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT: Information related to the cost effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, and socioeconomic impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 70 is set forth in the attached Staff Report, dated January 17, 2009, and has been considered in adopting the rule.

8. ANALYSIS OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS: Information on existing regulations related to Rule 70 is set forth in the attached Staff Report, dated January 17, 2009, and has been considered in adopting the

rule.

9. ATTAINMENT OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS: Ventura County has been designated a severe non-attainment area for both state and federal ozone ambient air quality standards. Reactive organic compounds are precursors to the formation of ozone. Rule 70 reduces reactive organic compounds and the proposed amendments will help Ventura County to move closer to attainment of the state and federal ozone ambient air quality

standards.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. OM A R RE YNALDO GAR C IAC HAVEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10447

D.C . No. 4:12-c r-02532-C KJ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Fre d L. Va

n Sic kle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d August 25, 2015 *** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Om ar R e yna ldo Ga

rc ia -C have z a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt and c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 46-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry a fte r 

# FIL ED SEP 01 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Fre d L. Va

n Sic k le , Se nior Unite d

Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.
*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de porta

tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ga

rc i a -C have z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c o unse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Ga

rc ia -C h ave z the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or an s we ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Garc ia -C hav e z wa ive d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e . Our inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to P e n son v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se e id. at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 3 - 1 0 4 4 7 2
## SERVED SEPTEMBER27, 2012

# :~::P.:~,RTMENT OF ·"· ·'rJC'f1

## ')RTATI011

## l

1 ; '!i\t\ r..) _,.,\
. f\ ""' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**.).~::J<ET** 

## OPEFlATIOi\b

In The Matter Of: EMPIRE FLIGHTACADEMY Respondent OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) 

### ) ) 

### )

. ) Docket No. FAA-2011-0290 Case No. CP10EA0004



### NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION 

## 28 

## p**1:1.~9**

On March 23, 2012, an Order Setting New Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed, which noted that the location ofthe Hearing would be provided by separate Notice to the parties. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the hearing in this case, set to begin on October 16,2012 at 9:00am EST, will be held atthe following location: · United States District Court Eastern District ofNew York Long Island Courthouse Courtroom 710 100 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY 11722-4438 The courthouse opensto the public at 8:00am. The Hearing begins at 9:00am. Please allow time to pass through security. Cameras, including cellular telephones incorporating cameras, are not allowed in federal courthouses.

Attachment

- Service List

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

### ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY**A~tention:** 

### Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

### ONE COPY John Zaremba, Respondent'sRepresentative 

### Rte. 109, Hanger 3, Republic Airport Farmingdale, NY 11735 TEL: 631-777-2514 Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AEA-7 Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-533-5699 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,AdministrativeLawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S;E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-0290 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### FRANK WOOD v. THE TOWN OF EDENTON.

*Municipal Taxation*— Solvent *Credits.*

All notes, bonds, &c., owned by a resident of a municipality, whether owing by residents or non-residents, are subjects of municipal taxation.

(See *syllabus*in preceding case.)

*152This was a civil ACTION, instituted before a Justice of the Peace, and carried, by appeal, to the Superior Court of Chowan County, and tried before Boykin, *J.,*at Spring Term, 1889, of that Court, upon the following facls agreed:

1. That the defendant is a duly incorporated town, and authorized under its charter (ch. 123, Private Laws of North Carolina, 1869 and 1870) to annually levy and collect taxes “ on all real and personal estate within said town,” etc.

2. The plaintiff is a resident of said town, and, on the_ dajr of June, 1888, he listed for taxation, before the proper list-taker of Chowan County, the notes, bonds and solvent credits owned by him and in his possession, amounting to $17,000, and the councilmen of the town of Edenton took the same from the said county list and levied a tax of one-half of one per cent, upon said notes, bonds and solvent credits, and collected from the plaintiff thereon the sum of $85, which the plaintiff paid under protest.

3. That of the notes, bonds, etc., so levied upon, $4,000 worth were against persons living in town, and secured by deeds of trust upon property in said town, and $13,000 worth against non-residents of the town, and secured by property not located in said town.

4. The plaintiff demanded said amount, in thirty’ days, of the Treasurer of said town, which being refused, he, after ninety days, brought this action, and otherwise complied with the requirements of chapter 137, Laws of 1887.

The Court gave the following judgment:

“This cause coming to be heard upon appeal of plaintiff from a judgment rendered by PI. DeB. Hooper, J. P., and being heard and considered by the foregoing facts agreed, it is adjudged by the Court that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of sixty-five dollars, being one-half of one per cent, collected by the defendant of the plaintiff upon thirteen thousand dollars of bonds against non-residents of Edenton, and secured by mortgage upon lands out*153side the corporate limits of the said town, together with the costs of this action, to be taxed by the Clerk.”

The defendant excepted, and appealed to this Court.

*Mr. W. D. Pruden,*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. Charles M. Busbee,*for the defendant.

Shephehd, J.:

For the reasons given in the case of *Redmond*v. *The Commissioners of Tarboro, ante,*122, the judgment below is reversed.

All notes, bonds, &c., whether owing by residents or nonresidents, are subjects of municipal taxation.

Judgment reversed.
**Exhibit 31(e)1**

**MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 

I, Anthony J. Topazi, certify that:

1.

 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mississippi Power 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)

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

 

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’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 registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)

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

Date:  February 26, 2007

/s/Anthony J. Topazi

Anthony J. Topazi

President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88102-88103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25760]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #20757 and #20758; VIRGINIA Disaster Number VA-
20013]

Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

[[Page 88103]]

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of 
Virginia (FEMA-4831-DR), dated October 10, 2024.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Helene.

DATES: Issued on October 25, 2024.
    Incident Period: September 25, 2024 through October 3, 2024.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: December 9, 2024.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: July 10, 
2025.

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 
apply for a disaster assistance loan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, dated October 10, 2024, is hereby amended to include the 
following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Albemarle, Appomattox, Botetourt, Buckingham, 
Charlotte, Floyd, Greene, Madison, Nelson, Patrick, and the Independent 
City of Roanoke.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Alejandro Contreras,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & 
Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2024-25760 Filed 11-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
```
#### STATE v. DAVID C. SMITH.

*Warrants; Amendment of, in Superior Court.*

The Superior Court has power to *amend,*after verdict, a warrant brought by appeal of defendant from a Justice’s Court, charging • defendant with going upon the land of another, after being forbidden to do so, so as to charge that the entry was “wilful and unlawful,” and to make the charge conclude, “against the peace and dignity of the State.”

INDICTMENT, for going upon the land of another, after being forbidden, tried before *Armfield, J.,*at January Term, 1889, of the Superior Court of Pitt.

The defendant was arrested upon a criminal warrant,, issued by a Justice of the Peace, charging him with going upon the land of another without a license, having first been forbidden to do so, in violation of the statute *(The Code,*§ 1120). Pie pleaded not guilty, and was convicted in the Court of the Justice of the Peace, and from the judgment there against him he appealed to the Superior Court, and on the trial, in that Court, there was a verdict of guilty; whereupon, he moved an arrest of judgment, upon the ground, that it was not charged in the warrant that the entry upon the land was “ wilful and unlawful,” and that the charge did not conclude “ against the form of the statute.” Upon the motion of the Solicitor for the State, the Court allowed the warrant to be amended in the respects-mentioned, overruled the motion in arrest of judgment, and gave judgment against the defendant, from which he, having excepted, appealed to this Court.

*The Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. C. M. Bernard,*for the defendant.

*411Merrimon, J.

(after stating the case). The amendment of the warrant allowed did not change the nature of the-offence charged, or affect the substance thereof, nor did it deprive the defendant of any defence he might or could have made. The power of the Superior Court to allow such amendments is very comprehensive, and is intended to help-actions and proceedings, both civil and criminal, beginning in courts of Justices of the Peace. This authority to exercise such power has been repeatedly considered by this Court, and is well settled. *State*v. Vaughan, 91 N. C., 532; *State*v. *Crook, ibid.,*536; *Singer Mfg. Co*v. *Barrett,*95 N. C., 36.

Yery clearly the Superior Court had power to allow the amendments complained of, and properly did so.

No error. Affirmed.
From: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:42 PM

To: 'jmiller@wgpaver.com' <jmiller@wgpaver.com>

Subject: Whitacre Greer green brick testing results

Hello Mr. Miller,

As we discussed in our telephone conversation, I’m attaching a spreadsheet of the Whitacre 

Greer facilities that provided green brick testing results to EPA via BIA. I’ve added some 

columns at the end for you to fill out the Name of Clay Deposit, Geological Age of the Deposit, 

and Latitude/Longitude of the Clay Deposit. Any information you are able to provide about the 

clay deposits will be much appreciated and helpful!

Thank you for your help,

Gabrielle 

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541-7015

<< Green Brick Testing Results- 032515BIA- to EPA May 4 2015_WhitacreGreer.xlsx>>
## Portland Generating Station

Emissions Reduction Calculations

Calculation without unit 5 contribution Maximum Modeled Concentration (ug/m 3 ) 810.87 Background Concentration (ug/m 3 ) 39.3 1-Hour SO 2NAAQS (ug/m 3 ) 196.2 % Reduction needed to meet NAAQS 80.7%With unit 5 concentration (0.91

ug/m3) added to background Maximum Modeled Concentration (ug/m 3 ) 810.87 Background Concentration (ug/m 3 ) 40.21 1-Hour SO 2NAAQS (ug/m 3 ) 196.2 % Reduction needed to meet NAAQS 80.8%