alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ALLEN ORGAN COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 31.1

                       Section 302 Certification

I, Steven Markowitz, certify that:
1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Allen Organ
  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 officers 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 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 officers 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
  registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):
   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.

/s/STEVEN MARKOWITZ
Steven Markowitz
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2005
# Official Journal L 68/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2014.068.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 68 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 577 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2014.068.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 68

English edition

Legislation

Volume 577 March 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | | 2014/115/EU |
| | * | Council Decision of 2 December 2013 on the conclusion of the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement | 1 |
| | | Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement | 2 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2014/115/EU

*

Council Decision of 2 December 2013 on the conclusion of the Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement

1

Protocol Amending the Agreement on Government Procurement

2

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Whitewater Tile & Pressed Brick Manufacturing Company, Appellant, vs. Kestol, Executrix, Respondent.

*December 2, 1919*

March *9, 1920.*

*Whitewater T. & P. B. M. Co. v. Johnson, ante,*p. 82, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Walworth county: Jay F. Lyon, Judge.

*Reversed.*

For the appellant there were briefs by *F. Henry Kiser*of Whitewater and *Page & Perris*of Elkhorn, attorneys, and *Kopp & Brunckhorst*of Platteville, of counsel, and oral argument by *L. A. Brunckhorst.*

*E.' T. Cass*of Whitewater, for the respondent.

The following opinion was filed January 13, 1920:

Vinje, J.

This case is ruled by the case of *Whitewater Tile & Pressed Brick M. Co. v. Johnson, ante,*p. 82, 175 N. W. 786.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff for the sum of $600 with interest thereon at six per cent, per annum from May 26, 1903, and costs.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on Miarcli 9, 1920.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08451

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 08451\08451_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08451\08451_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08451\08451_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08451\08451_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08451\08451_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08451\08451_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

08451\Supporting Documentation\08451_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08451\Supporting Documentation\08451_Aerial Map_2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08451\Supporting Documentation\08451_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08451\08451_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7938** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANTWAN LAMAR JACKSON, a/k/a Twan, a/k/a Mey

- Mey , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville
. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00033

- NKM

- RSB

- 1; 3:14

- cv - 80732

- NKM

- RSB )

Submitted : April 1 9 , 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Antwan Lamar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appell ee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antwan Lamar Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district cou rt denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); se e Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
t he appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23(D)

                                     CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm name and our review of the
estimates of proved reserves of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids that
Energen Corporation attributed to its net interests in oil and gas properties
located in the U.S. as of December 31, 2003, which appears in this Form 10-K. In
addition, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-00395, File No. 333-43245 and
File No. 333-86056) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-27869, File No. 33-46641, File
No. 33-48504, File No. 33-48505, File No. 33-26111, File No. 33-45107 and File
No. 333-84170) of Energen Corporation to the reference to our firm name and our
review of the estimates of proved reserves of natural gas, oil and natural gas
liquids that Energen Corporation attributed to its net interests in oil and gas
properties located in the U.S. as of December 31, 2003, which appears in this
Form 10-K.


T. Scott Hickman & Associates, Inc.
March 12, 2004
# IMMC.EESC-2021-04492-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2021-04492-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

| OPINION |
| --- |
| European Economic and Social Committee |
| Adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022 |
| _____________ |
| Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community as regards the adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022

  [COM(2021) 479 final - 2021/0272 (NLE)] |
| |
| TEN/755 |

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022

_____________

Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community as regards the adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for 2022

  [COM(2021) 479 final - 2021/0272 (NLE)]

TEN/755

EN

Referral

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Referral | Council of the European Union, 25/08/2021 |
| Legal basis | Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 22/09/2021 |
| Plenary session No | 563 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 238/0/7 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 25/08/2021

Council of the European Union, 25/08/2021

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

22/09/2021

22/09/2021

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

563

563

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

238/0/7

238/0/7

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 563rd plenary session of 22 and 23 September 2021 (meeting of 22 September), by 238 votes and 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 563rd plenary session of 22 and 23 September 2021 (meeting of 22 September), by 238 votes and 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 22 September 2021

Brussels, 22 September 2021

Christa SCHWENG
  The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG
  The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________

_____________
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 31, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00782-CV 

IN RE LARRY K. ANDERS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 429th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-05551-2018 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

In his August 9, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks relief from 

the trial court’s order reinstating the case following a dismissal for want of 

prosecution. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude 

that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

230782F.P05 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Annual Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Leonard S. Schwartz, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




















/s/ Leonard S.
Schwartz


Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


September
4, 2008
<PAGE>
                 AMERCO and Consolidated Subsidiaries

Exhibit 12.  Statement Re: Computation of Ratios

                                                       Year  end
                                         -------------------------------------
                                          1997     1996    1995   1994    1993
                                         -------------------------------------
Pretax earnings from operations           83.5     96.2    93.5   66.5    49.2
Plus:  Interest expense                   73.5     67.6    67.8   68.9    68.0
       Preferred stock dividends          16.9     13.0    13.0    4.8     -
       Amortization of debt expense
         and discounts                     2.6       .7      .8    1.1     1.6
       A portion of rental expense
         (1/3)                            28.6     23.0    22.2   28.1    39.7
                                         -------------------------------------
     Subtotal (A)                        205.1    200.5   197.3  169.4   158.5
                                         -------------------------------------

Divided by:


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                        73.5     67.6    67.8   68.9    68.0
  Preferred stock dividends               16.9     13.0    13.0    4.8     -
  A portion of rental expense (1/3)       28.6     23.0    22.2   28.1    39.7
  Interest capitalized during the
    period                                 3.4      1.8     1.7     .6      .2
  Amortization of debt expense
    and discounts                          2.6       .7      .8    1.1     1.6
                                         -------------------------------------
     Subtotal (B)                        125.0    106.1   105.5  103.5   109.5
                                         -------------------------------------
     Ratio of earnings to fixed
       charges (A)/(B)                    1.64     1.89    1.87   1.64    1.45
                                         =====================================

     The Company believes that one-third of the Company's annual
rental expense is a reasonable approximation of the interest factor of
such rentals.
EXHIBIT 32.3



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Innkeepers USA Trust for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger Pollak, Vice President of Accounting of Innkeepers Hospitality, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Innkeepers Hospitality.



This certification shall only be deemed to cover the financial statements of Innkeepers Hospitality, and shall not be deemed
to cover any financial statements (or other information) included in the Report with respect to Innkeepers USA Trust.



Date: November 3, 2003



/s/    Roger PollakRoger Pollak Vice President of Accounting Innkeepers Hospitality




34
DEVAL L. PATRICK 

Governor 

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY 

Lieutenant Governor 

April 14, 2010 

H. Curtis Spalding 

Regional Administrator 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

One Congress Street 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Dear Administrator Spalding: 

IAN A. BOWLES 

Secretary 

LAURIE BURT 

Commissioner 

I am submitting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approval a revision to the May, 2001 

Massachusetts Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of 

Lowell. In the SIP revision, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 

proposes to discontinue monitoring for CO in Lowell and to use data from the Worcester CO monitor as a 

surrogate for Lowell. The monitored CO readings at the Lowell and Worcester monitors have been well 

below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO for more than 20 years. 

MassDEP issued the proposed SIP revision for public review and comment on November 22, 2008 and 

held a public hearing on December 30, 2008, as noted in the enclosed certification . We received written 

comments from your staff in support of the proposed SIP revision on January 12, 2009. We have 

responded to all comments received in the enclosed Response to Comments and final SIP revision . 

Should you or your staff have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Barbara Kwetz, 

Director of the Bureau of Waste Prevention's Planning and Evaluation Division at (617)-292-5882 . 

Enclosures 

cc : Anne Arnold, US EPA Region I 

This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes, ADA Coordinator at 617-556-1057. TDD# 1-866-539-7622 or 1-617-574-6868. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108 617-292-5500 

MassDEP on the World Wide Web: http ://www.mass.gov/dep 

0 Printed on Recycled Paper
FIFRA Overview: Pesticide Registration 

November 9, 2015

Dominic Schuler

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention

Office of Pesticide Programs 

1
2

Pesticide Product: Registration Process

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA) requires all pesticides sold or distributed in 

the US to be registered by EPA. 

- A pesticide is any substance or mixture 

intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or 

mitigating any pest.

- Legionella is a pest and any substance making 

claims against Legionella is a pesticide.
3

Pesticide Product: Registration Process

• Registration Process for new products: 

- PRIA – fee for service. 

- Active ingredients already approved for 

potable water can have a review time of 

4-5 mos. with few(er) data requirements.

- Active ingredients that have not been 

approved for potable water can have a 

review time up to 15 mos. with significant 

data requirements.

- Legionella claims require efficacy data.
4

Pesticide Devices

•“any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) that 

is intended for trapping, destroying, repelling, or 

mitigating any pest or any form of plant or animal life.” 

• Devices are not registered, but are “regulated” by FIFRA.

• Devices include ultraviolet light systems, ozone 

generators, water filters, etc.

• Device claims cannot be false or misleading

• They must be manufactured in an EPA registered 

establishment.
FIFRA: State Authority 

• FIFRA allows states to have stricter 

standards than those prescribed in federal 

regulations.

– A state can require compliance with state-specific 

pesticide registration process in addition to the 

EPA registration.

5
Clarification Questions

6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5186

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MELVIN WARREN JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CR-05-156)

Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,

Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Warren Johnson was convicted of possessing with

intent to distribute cocaine (Count 1), maintaining a place for the

purpose of manufacturing, distributing and using cocaine (Count 2),

possessing firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon (Count 3),

and possessing firearms in furtherance of the drug trafficking

crimes alleged in Counts 1 and 2, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 924(c) (West Supp. 2006) (Count 4). He timely appeals, arguing

that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for

Count 4.

Viewing the evidence as required, United States v.

Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996), we find there was

substantial evidence to support Johnson’s § 924(c) conviction for

Count 4. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We

reject Johnson’s argument that there was insufficient evidence that

the guns at issue were in furtherance of his drug trafficking.

United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002). To the

extent that Johnson alleges erroneous jury instructions regarding

Count 4, this court only reviews for plain error, because he failed

to object to the instructions below. Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 30(d).

We find no plain error in the district court’s instructions for

Count 4. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993)

(giving review standard for plain error). 
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’s convictions. 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 decisional process.

AFFIRMED