alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin Ericksteen, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 of
A M Marketing, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  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 annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented   in  this   annual   report  our   conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 15, 2005
/s/ Kevin Ericksteen
------------------------
By: Kevin Ericksteen, CEO
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Guidelines for Conducting Public Meetings (NUREG/BR-0224, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0224 (PDF - 431 KB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** June 2006

 Office of Public Affairs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Preface

Public meetings play a significant role in fulfilling the mission of the NRC. They not only provide an opportunity to thoroughly address public concerns about health, safety and the environment, but build credibility that the NRC is vigilantly performing its regulatory role. In turn, such meetings provide useful insights to the NRC on the community’s attitudes, apprehensions and priorities.

This pamphlet provides guidelines and helpful hints designed to help you prepare for and conduct an effective public meeting.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
**Exhibit 15**

 

 

 

The Partners

Duke Realty Limited Partnership

 

 

 

Gentlemen:

 

RE:  Registration Statements Nos. 333-37920-01,  333-100571

 

With respect to the subjectregistration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of ourreport dated October 30, 2002 related to our review of interim financialinformation.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, such report is not considered a part of aregistration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a reportprepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of sections 7 and 11of the Act.

 

 

 
| KPMG LLP               |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Indianapolis,  Indiana |
| November 11,  2002     |

 

----
HomeNuclear SecurityRadioactive Material SecurityIntegrated Source Management Portfolio (ISMP)

# Other Applications within the Integrated Source Management Portfolio (ISMP)

At its core, the Integrated Source Management Portfolio (ISMP) contract sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consists of three tasks that provide for operations, maintenance, and help desk support. These three tasks will last the duration of the contract and provide basic support for all components of the ISMP.

The ISMP contract also included several optional tasks to migrate existing NRC processes and systems to the Web-Based Licensing (WBL) System platform. Specifically, these included the Import/Export Licensing process, the Transportation Approval Package Information System (TAPIS), Reciprocity Tracking System (RTS), National Sealed Source and Device Registry System (NSS&DRS), and General License Tracking System (GLTS). These other internal-use NRC systems have been successfully incorporated into the WBL system.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Background
          - National Source Tracking System (NSTS)
          - Web-Based Licensing (WBL) System
          - License Verification System (LVS)
          - Benefits of System Integration
          - Other Applications within ISMP
          - Help Desk Support

#### 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, June 8, 2020
HomeRadioactive Waste

# High-Level Waste

High-level radioactive wastes are the highly radioactive materials produced as a byproduct of the reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors. High-level wastes take one of two forms:
            - Spent ( used ) reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal
            - Waste materials remaining after spent fuel is reprocessed

Spent nuclear fuel is used fuel from a reactor that is no longer efficient in creating electricity, because its fission process has slowed. However, it is still thermally hot, highly radioactive, and potentially harmful. Until a permanent disposal repository for spent nuclear fuel is built, licensees must safely store this fuel at their reactors.

Reprocessing extracts isotopes from spent fuel that can be used again as reactor fuel. Commercial reprocessing is currently not practiced in the United States, although it has been allowed in the past. However, significant quantities of high-level radioactive waste are produced by the defense reprocessing programs at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, such as Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina, and by commercial reprocessing operations at West Valley, New York. These wastes, which are generally managed by DOE, are not regulated by NRC. However they must be included in any high-level radioactive waste disposal plans, along with all high-level waste from spent reactor fuel.

Because of their highly radioactive fission products, high-level waste and spent fuel must be handled and stored with care. Since the only way radioactive waste finally becomes harmless is through decay, which for high-level wastes can take hundreds of thousands of years, the wastes must be stored and finally disposed of in a way that provides adequate protection of the public for a very long time.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Low-Level Waste
          - Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
          - High-Level Waste
          - Uranium Mill Tailings
          - Low-Level Waste Disposal
          - High-Level Waste Disposal
          - Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
          - Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel
          - Decommissioning

#### 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

#### Related Information

            - High-Level Waste Disposal

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020
# L_2015185EN.01000501.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 185/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1135

of 9 July 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (กาแฟดอยตช้าง (Kafae Doi Chaang) (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Thailand's application to register the name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Thailand's application to register the name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2).

Official Journal of the European Union

2

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. — Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

3

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 49, 21.2.2014, p. 8.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Douglas

GISTARVE RUFFIN, JR.,

Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Respondent. No. 68248 v

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS These are pro se appeals from judgments of conviction. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Jerome M. Polaha, Judge.

The notices of appeal were untimely filed. NRAP 4(b); NRS 34.575(1); NRAP 26(a); NRAP 26(c). Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court, Lozada u. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994), we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals, and we

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Jerome M. Polaha, District Judge Gistarve Ruffin, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A c4riek, 2
#### FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Iva I. RICHARDSON, Appellee.

No. 21834.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 1965.

Paul R. Larkin, Jr., James E. Tribble, Samuel J. Powers, Jr., Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, Fla., for appellant.

George L. Knight, Hyzer, Knight & Lund and John West, Miami, Fla., for ap-pellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS,* and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Judge of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

In this suit on a life insurance policy the insurer appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on a jury’s special verdict. The jury found that the policy was in effect on the date of the assured’s death. The insurer contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict, judgment n. o. v., and new trial.

No good purpose would be served by reviewing the evidence at length. The case turned on whether Mrs. Richardson, the assured’s widow, paid two or three premiums. Mrs. Richardson testified that she paid three premiums, two by check and one in cash delivered to the agent who sold the policy. The agent, whom the plaintiff called to the stand, testified on cross-examination, that he was not given any cash in payment of the disputed premium. His testimony produced a conflict; it did not impeach Mrs. Rlchard-*954son’s testimony. We cannot say that Mrs. Richardson’s testimony was cancelled out by the agent’s. Nor can we say that the jury acted irrationally in crediting her testimony. On the record, there was sufficient evidence (1) for the case to go to the jury, (2) to support the jury’s finding, and (3) to justify denial of a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.
# L_2015098EN.01000501.xml

| 15.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 98/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 98/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/587

of 26 March 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Salpicão de Melgaço (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Salpicão de Melgaço’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Salpicão de Melgaço’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2).

Official Journal of the European Union

2

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salpicão de Melgaço’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Salpicão de Melgaço’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Salpicão de Melgaço’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

3

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 422, 25.11.2014, p. 8.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsEnforcement Petition (2.206)Director's Decisions on Completed 2.206 Petitions

# Director's Decisions on Completed Petitions for 2005

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, May 6, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997

#### 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 Thursday, May 6, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (NUREG-2124)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 82-5956.

#### Gallagher *v.*Washington.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
O rder filed May 2, 2013

In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_________ _ No. 11

- 1 2

- 00 353

- C V

__________ IN THE INTEREST OF G.C. AND J.C. , CHILD REN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC2

- 2991

- PC

O R D E R
The trial court terminat ed the parental rights of both par ents of G.C. and J.C

. Both parents filed an appeal. This appeal is accelerated, and so far as reasonably possible, this court must ensure that the appeal is brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4;
T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a). Appellants’ briefs are past due. This court previously extended Appellants’ briefing deadline and informed Appellants by letter dated March 28, 2013, that their briefs were due to be filed on or before April 15, 2013, and that “no further2 extensions shall be filed. ” Despite this court’s March 28 letter, neither Appellant has filed a brief, and Appellant (J.C.) has filed in this court a motion for extension

. Upon consideration of the importance of the rights at issue in this case, we grant in part the mo tion for extension. Appellants’ briefs are now due to be filed in
this court on or before May 9, 201 3 . Appellee’s brief will be due for filing on or
before May 29, 2013

. The court considers this to be a serious matter in light of the Texas Supreme Court guidelines in cases of this nature. The court will not look upon further requests for extension with favor
, and the court will not grant such requests except in cases of extreme necessity. Workload is not a case of extreme necessity

. This case will be submitted on briefs on May 30, 2013

.

PER CURIAM

May 2, 2013 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson , J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,422,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,409,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                   723,000
<INVENTORY>                                    237,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,186,905
<PP&E>                                      11,035,934
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,766,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,210,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,834,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,594,412
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,308
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,542,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,210,338
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,651,758
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,916,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,214,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               612,417
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             228,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,252,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,252,110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,429,717)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)


</TABLE>