alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Tan Ho Chen, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 financialstatements, 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 certifyingofficer(s) 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 tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the company’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 suchevaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

 

5. Thecompany’s other certifying officer(s) 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 (orpersons 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 andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) Anyfraud, 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: June 23, 2005
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 6, 2020

NO. 03-19-00813-CV

Yevgenia Shockome, Appellant

v.

Robert Brendel, Barbara Trevino-Kuvet, Stratos Apostolou, Mary F. Iverson,

Randolph V. Gonzalez, Cary Street Partners, Riverstone Wealth Management,

Kyle Coward, Beth Layman, First Clearing, Tara Randle, River Del Llano,

Amber Vasquez Bode, Erin Lemaster, Noelle Davis, Timothy Shockome, and

Does 1 through 20, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLEES’ MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on October 24, 2019. 

Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having reviewed the record, the Court 

agrees that the appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses

the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 9, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-0734 Lower Tribunal Nos. F19-4950, F19-4952, F19-13087, F18-18896, F19-

7351, F18-22274, F19-4953, F19-5181, F19-4951

________________ 

### Bill Stroud, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge. Bill Stroud, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“It is clear in the case law of this state that double jeopardy challenges to convictions are not cognizable under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.800(a).”); Ramirez v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1823, D1824 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence.”); Kingry v. State, 28 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Having freely and voluntarily entered into [a plea] agreement and accepted its benefits, appellant may not now seek to be relieved of one of the burdens imposed upon him pursuant to the agreement.”).
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInterim Staff GuidanceInterim Staff Guidance Associated with Combined License (COL), Design Certification (DC), and Early 

# Contact Us About Interim Staff Guidance Associated with Combined License (COL) and Design Certification (DC) Applications for New Reactors

You may use this form to send us questions or comments regarding Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) associated with combined license (COL) and design certification (DC) applications for new reactors.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 08, 2020
#### First National Bank of Rochester, Respondent, v James F. Volpe et al., Defendants and James J. Volpe, Appellant. David A. White, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 732]

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action to foreclose a mortgage and enforce notes arid guarantees given by defendants to plaintiff, James J. Volpe (defendant) and his counsel appeal from a judgment granting plaintiffs request for *868imposition of sanctions of $2,492 against defendant’s counsel for his frivolous conduct in moving for an order of preclusion prior to the date on which the bill of particulars was due. Because the conduct of defendant’s counsel was without basis in law or fact *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [i]), the imposition of sanctions was a proper exercise of Supreme Court’s discretion. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Sanctions.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

h1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145680

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145680

COA: 307932

Wayne CC: 96

- 006397

- FC

SHADRACH RICHEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7930
JAMES WESLEY CONYERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CA ROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; THOMAS C. RUFFINO, Warden, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-95-51-2) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 27, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Mary Katherine Nicholson, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Conyers v. North Carolina At torney General , No. CA-95-51-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
No. 86-44.

#### Shearson/American Express Inc. et al. *v.*McMahon et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 812.] Motion of Willie D. Chandler et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted.
No. 86-703.

#### International Oilfield Divers, Inc., et al. *v.*Pickle et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

The Jones Act, 38 Stat. 1185, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 688(a), provides that “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law . . . .” This case presents the question of who is a “seaman” for purposes of the Jones Act.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, both in this case and in its previous cases, has taken an expansive view in defining who is a seaman. The Fifth Circuit, relying on its earlier opinion in *Offshore Co.*v. *Robison,*266 F. 2d 769 (1959), has taken the position that to be a seaman, a person need not assist in the transportation function of a vessel. See *Barrett*v. *Chevron, U. S. A., Inc.,*781 F. 2d 1067, 1073 (1986) (en banc). Other Courts of Appeals, particularly the Third and Seventh Circuits, have rejected this view and require that before a plaintiff can sue under the Jones Act, he must be employed in such a way as to assist in the navigational function of a vessel. See *Johnson*v. *John F. Beasley Construction Co.,*742 F. 2d 1054, 1061 (CA7 1984) (“|W]e think the second part of the *Robison*test strays from important Jones Act principles when it speaks of the employee’s duties as having to relate only to the ‘function of the vessel or the accomplishment of its mission’ without further qualifying ‘function’ and ‘mission’ in terms of the *transportation*function and mission of the vessel”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1211 (1985); *Simko*v. *C & C Marine Maintenance Co.,*594 F. 2d 960, 964-965 (CA3), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 833 (1979). There is even dis*1060agreement within the Fifth Circuit over this point. See *Barrett, supra,*at 1076 (Gee, J., specially concurring).

Because of the direct split among the Courts of Appeals, I would grant the petition.
05/28/2010 10:18 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ OMS 0001/00 3 

^ 

U.S. Deportrnent 

ot Tronsporlotion 

Federal Aviaiion 

Administration 

Southwest Region 

Arkansas, Louisiana, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma 

Texas 

May 20, 2010 

Via Certified Mail. Return Receipt Requested 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-43a 

Re. In f he Matter of LMl Painting, LJ C 

FAA Case No. 2009SW700208 

rAA-2010-0017 

• •.i-iw'-.xj'A 

Oftice of Regional Counsel 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

fon Worth, TX 78137-4298 

(61)7) 222-5099 

(817) 222-5945/6092 FAX 

tmS\Anoi)z^/<soiO-(jv/'] 

Oil February 16, 2010, LMI Painting, LLC (LMl) withdrew its request for a hearing in the abovecaptjoncd maner. However, when we reviewed Docket FAA-2010-0017, thai request was not in the 

docket folder. Accordingly, we are forwarding LMI's request and one copy to the Docket and to the 

Administrative Judge, who is nol yet assigned. 

Sincerely, 

LYNETTK WORD 

Regional Counsel 

SouthweKORegion 

EiKlb&ijJ.e; JwMJ Painting, LJ.-C withdra-wal of Its request for a hearing - original and one 

copy 

cc; Lance Murphy, President/Owner 

LMI Paintiiig, LLC 

5238 Briltmoore Road 

Houston, TX 77041 
05/28/2010 10:18 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 12002/003 

LTvn 

PftltJTINC.WAnCOvtaiNlj.lHLCIa l ro/sflNlj' . 

L.ivi.t. 

:i2-j8 BriUiiioovft l'i.(')ad 

Hoii.^Loii, TPXMS 77041 

Phone : {-jy}) H5(i.87r\7 

F<ix;(7i;j)tf56.eiaf> 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W] 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

LMI Painting is requesting lo withdraw our request for a hearing. LMl is sending a copy 

this letter both to the FAA attorney who signed the Notice and to the Hearing Docket. 

Addres55: '^'^-^'^ '^n^-mDort- Ro<M 

Telephone: 111 -'^^1 , -'^'l^n 

Date; ^ - I0> ~ 10 

Case No: JOO^l SWIQO^D^ ' 

Tax ID Number: 7 6 CSOO ^^H
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices

# Change Notices for 2013

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020
General Service Fluorescent Lamp and Incandescent Reflector Lamp Energy March 10-11, 2008 

Conservation Standard ANOPR Public Meeting 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

ANOPR Public Meeting

Closing 

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

March 10-11, 2008

Closing 

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DOE to 

consider seven factors when setting energy conservation standards 

Factor Analysis 

1. Economic impact on consumers and 

manufacturers 

Life-cycle cost analysis 

Manufacturer impacts analysis 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost analysis 

3. Total projected energy savings National impact analysis 

4. Impact on utility or performance Screening analysis 

Engineering analysis 

5. Impact of any lessening of 

competition 

Manufacturer impacts analysis 

6. Need for national energy 

conservation 

National impact analysis 

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant 

Environmental assessment 

Utility impact analysis 

Employment impact analysis 

2 
General Service Fluorescent Lamp and Incandescent Reflector Lamp Energy March 10-11, 2008 

Conservation Standard ANOPR Public Meeting 

Closing 

How to Submit Comments... 

 Public Meeting – oral comments will be captured in the transcript and become part of 

the public record. 

 Written comments – ANOPR comment period open until April 12, 2008 

Reference docket #: EE-2006-STD-0130 and/or RIN#: 1904-AA92 

Email: fluorescent_and_incandescent_lamps.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov 

Mail: Mrs. Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Mailstop EE-2J

Washington, DC 20585-0121 

Courier: Mrs. Brenda Edwards 

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor

Washington, DC 20024

Telephone: (202) 586-2945

3
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008Page 181 of 22605/29/2009 10:01:12

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Seabrook 1 Docket (050- 00443)

Fitness for Duty / IR128 - Non-compliance O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

133

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR185 - Procedural adherence LTA E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering G - Design 

267

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 3
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Civil Support Team Conducts Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Training with Agencies

By Sgt. Ian Withrow139th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
Order filed April 15, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00837-CR

____________

EX PARTE ANDRE BAILEY, Appellant

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2324058

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 23, 2020. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 10 days 

of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 1984

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020
BG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0343

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM JAMES HARNING,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including October 10, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 13 2021

09/13/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0343
#### Bender, Appellant, vs. Bain, Respondent.

*February 16*—

April *12, 1938.*

For the appellant there were briefs by *Strehlow & Crans-ton*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *Lee H. Cranston.*

For the respondent there were briefs by *Martin, Clifford, Dilweg & Delaney*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *G. F. Clifford.*

The following opinion was filed April 12, 1938:

Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Martin deeming himself disqualified to participate in a decision upon this appeal and the other members of the court being equally divided on the question whether the judgment should be affirmed or reversed, Mr. Chief Justice Rosenberry, Mr. Justice Fair-child, and Mr. Justice Wick'hem being of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, and Mr. Justice Fowler, Mr. Justice Fritz, and Mr. Justice Nelson being of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed under the rule.

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 25, 1938.