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

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Brian C. Faith, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QuickLogic Corporation; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  | June 5, 2020 |                                  |
|--------|--------------|---------------------------------------|
|   |         |                                  |
|   |         | /s/ Brian C. Faith                    |
|   |         | Brain C. Faith                        |
|   |         | President and Chief Executive Officer |
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00948

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 00948\00948_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00948\00948_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 00948\00948_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

00948\Certifcation Statement_00948.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. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### Diane HILLIARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-14608 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 10/25/2016

Diane Hilliard, Pro Se, Augusta, GA

Luther J. Strange, III, Alabama Attorney General’s Office, Jim R. Ippolito, Jr., Gilda Branch Williams, Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, AL.

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Diane Hilliard appeals pro *se*the dismissal of her action against the Alabama Department of Transportation. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hilliard challenges the order dismissing her complaint *sua sponte,*but we previously ruled that her appeal of that order was untimely. Hilliard also challenges the denial of her motions for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and for the appointment of counsel. We affirm.

The Department argues that Hilliard’s motion for an extension of time should be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment, *see*Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, but we disagree. Hilliard did not mention the judgment of dismissal in her motion. Hilli-ard requested “the [district] court to extend the time for filing of her Amended Complaint and [for her] to acquire legal counsel.”

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hilliard’s motion for an extension of time. A plaintiff may obtain an extension of time “after the time has expired if [she] failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Hilliard filed her motion on September 16, 2015, 29 days after the district court dismissed her action against the Department. Although Hilliard requested additional time to retain counsel to help her “perfect and pursue her ... claims,” she failed to explain her delay in hiring counsel after being warned two months earlier that her complaint was fatally defective.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Hilliard’s motion for the appointment of counsel. “Appointment of counsel in civil cases is ... a privilege justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as the presence of facts and legal issues which are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained practitioner.” *Kilgo v. Ricks,*983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). “The key is whether the *pro*se, litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position in the court.” *Id.*Hilliard’s complaint of discrimination based on gender and race was not novel or complex.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Hilliard’s action against the Department.
J.M.B., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Aaron H. HARMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4773

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7894

WILLIAM SATTERFIELD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GILMORE HICKS; APRIL GREEN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00170

- JAG

- RCY )

Submitted : July 21, 2020 Decided: July 23, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
William Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
William Satterfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983 (201 8 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (201 8 ). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Satterfield v. Hicks , No. 3:19

- cv
- 00170

- JAG

- RCY (E.D . Va. Nov. 25, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* Although the district court dismissed Satterfield’s claims without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 615 (4th Cir. 2020).
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 National Science Foundation
 In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting: NAME AND COMMITTEE CODE: MRSEC—Chicago 2nd Year Virtual Site Visit (1203).
 DATE AND TIME: May 16, 2022, 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
 PLACE: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 | Virtual.
 TYPE OF MEETING: Part-Open.
 CONTACT PERSON: Dr. Miriam Deutsch, Program Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Room W 9216, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-5360.
 PURPOSE OF MEETING: Virtual site visit to provide an evaluation of the progress of the projects at the host site for the Division of Materials Research at the National Science Foundation.
 AGENDA:
 May 16, 2022
9:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m
Brief Charge to Panel
CLOSED.10:00 a.m.-10:10 a.m
Introduction
OPEN.10:10 a.m.-10:55 a.m
Director's Overview
OPEN.( print page 3365)10:55 a.m.-11:10 a.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.11:10 a.m.-11:30 a.m
IRG-1 Presentation
OPEN.11:30 a.m.-11:35 a.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.11:35 a.m.-11:45 a.m
Break
OPEN.11:45 a.m.-12:05 p.m
IRG-2 Presentation
OPEN.12:05 p.m.-12:10 p.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.12:10 p.m.-12:35 p.m
Education and Outreach, Diversity Plan
OPEN.12:35 p.m.-12:45 p.m
Discussion/Questions
OPEN.12:45 p.m.-01:30 p.m
Working Lunch
CLOSED.01:30 p.m.-02:30 p.m
Poster Session
OPEN.02:30 p.m.-02:45 p.m
Site Visit Discussion
OPEN.02:45 p.m.-03:30 p.m
Executive Session
CLOSED.03:30 p.m.-04:00 p.m
Debriefing
OPEN.04:00 p.m
Adjourn
 REASON FOR CLOSING: The work being reviewed during closed portions of the virtual site visit include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the project. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
 Dated: January 14, 2022. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 2022-01096 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bruce E. WHALEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30200.

D.C. No. CR-02-30010-ALA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 3, 2004.*

Decided May 10, 2004.

Douglas W. Fong, Esq., Medford, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tonia Moro, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bruce Whalen appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction of unlawful possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5). During a search of Whalen’s home, FBI agents found two floppy diskettes containing 44 images of child pornography and a laptop computer containing an additional 29 images of child pornography. Whalen argues that the district court erred in counting each graphics file containing an image of child pornography as an “item” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.4(b)(2). He also argues that the district court erred in declining to depart downward on the basis of his alleged diminished mental capacity. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines. *United States v. Montano,*250 F.3d 709, 712 (9th Cir.2001). We lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision not to depart downward absent evidence that the court believed it lacked the authority to do so. *United States v. Tam,*240 F.3d 797, 805 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

We conclude that the district court did not err in counting each graphics file containing an image of child pornography as ah “item” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.4(b)(2). Whalen’s argument is squarely foreclosed by our decisions in *United States v. Fellows,*157 F.3d 1197, 1201-02 (9th Cir.1998), and *United States v. Perreault,*195 F.3d 1133, 1134-35 (9th Cir.1999). Because the district court *133clearly acknowledged that it had the authority to depart downward on the basis of diminished mental capacity (among other grounds), we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s decision not to depart downward. *Tam,*240 F.3d at 805.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-1807 

ROBERT EMERSON LAMB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social

Security; MICHAEL CUMMINGS, Manager, Social

Security Administration; ROSANA FIGUEROA, Case

Worker, Social Security Administration,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,

District Judge. (4:07-cv-00020-RBS)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Emerson Lamb, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Emerson Lamb appeals the district court’s order

granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to appeal

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by

the district court. Lamb v. Astrue, No. 4:07-cv-00020-RBS (E.D.

Va. August 3, 2007). 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
# Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro Delivers Remarks at USS Bataan (LHD 5) Homecoming

### 21 Mar 2024

## Quick Facts

Good morning, and what a wonderful morning it is for so many family members and friends who are pierside with us today.

It is my honor and privilege to say to the more than 4,000 Sailors and Marines assigned to the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit—Welcome Home and Well Done!

The men and women of the ARG-MEU Team did a phenomenal job during their eight-and-a-half-month deployment.

The ARG-MEU operated in the 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operation, ensuring the free flow of maritime traffic and regional stability.

Following the outbreak of conflict between Israel and Hamas on October 7th, both ships participated in Operation Prosperity Guardian in the Red Sea to deter further escalation and protect innocent commercial shipping against Iranian-aligned Houthi attacks.

Our Navy-Marine Corps Team remains a key contributor to maintaining maritime safety, security, and global stability, and we remain committed to maintaining freedom of navigation in international waters.

As you all know, service is not an obligation; it’s a privilege—a chance to be a part of something greater than ourselves and to uphold the values that define us as a nation.

Service to our country and service in the armed forces are not merely jobs or careers; they are fundamental aspects of our democracy, deeply ingrained in the very fabric of our nation.

Every Sailor and Marine of the Bataan ARG-MEU team has chosen to serve. They answered our National Call to Service as part of our all-volunteer force. They chose to raise their right hand and swear an oath to defend the Constitution.

The Bataan ARG-MEU is a perfect example of the dedication we ask of our people. They were deployed forward, protecting our national interests, reassuring our allies, and deterring our adversaries.

I am so proud of these Sailors and Marines. They truly represent everything that is great about our Department of the Navy and indeed our Nation.

However, their service in defense of our country is only possible because of the love, support, and sacrifice of their families, many of whom are here today to welcome them home.

Over the past eight and a half months, the family members of our Sailors and Marines have endured missed birthdays, holidays, and anniversaries.

Spouses have shouldered the burdens of daily life without their partners, and parents have had to take on sole responsibility for caring for their children.

While these last 255 days have certainly not been easy for them, I am forever grateful to them for keeping the faith, and for believing that their family’s sacrifice in defense of their fellow Americans was worth it.

On behalf of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the entire country—to the Sailors, Marines, and families of the Bataan ARG and 26th MEU: thank you for your service and steadfast support to our grateful Nation.

Well done and welcome home!

----

**Speech by:** Carlos Del Toro

**Date Published:** 21 March 2024
EXHIBIT  21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


                  P.A.M. Transport, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

               P.A.M. Dedicated Services, Inc. (Ohio Corporation)

             P.A.M. Logistics Services, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

                        T.T.X., Inc. (Texas Corporation)

                  Choctaw Express, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)

                 Choctaw Brokerage, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)

               Allen Freight Services, Inc. (Missouri Corporation)

                  Decker Transport Co., Inc. (Ohio Corporation)

                 Transcend Logistics, Inc. (Indiana Corporation)

             East Coast Transport and Logistics, Inc. (Arkansas LLC)

                  McNeill Express, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

                    S & L Logistics, Inc. (Texas Corporation)

                  P.A.M. International, Inc. (Ohio Corporation)

                   P.A.M. Canada, Inc. (Canadian Corporation)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 

 v. 

NEIL E. JOKELSON, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2126 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 201 DB 2014 

Attorney Registration No. 2486 

(Philadelphia) 

 O R D E R 

PER CURIAM: 

 AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2015, there having been filed with 

this Court by Neil E. Jokelson his verified Statement of Resignation dated November 7, 

2014, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 215, it is 

 ORDERED that the resignation of Neil E. Jokelson is accepted; he is 

disbarred on consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and he shall 

comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the 

Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1886 DOMINGOS JOAO LIBERAL DE ARAUJO, Petitioner,
v. ALBERTO R. GONZÁLES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on August 11, 2006, is amended as follows: On page 11, line 10, insert "he" between "that" and "is therefore not removable".
I . 

I Implications of Proposed PM Coarse Standard on NYC PM-10 Nonattainment 

December 2005 

Overview 

EPA has recently proposed to revoke the annual PM10 standard upon promulgation of a 

new coarse standard. This document discusses the possible implications on NYC PM-10 

nonattainment, including whether Region 2 should take further action on approving New 

York's PM-10 SIP (and possibly a NY request to redesignate the area to attainment). 

Backeround 

• On December 21, 2005, EPA proposed a new coarse standard and revised fine 

particle standard. EPA proposed to revoke the annual PM10 standard upon 

promulgation of the coarse standard in September 2006. NYC nonattainment is 

based on violation of the annual standard. 

• The NY SIP submitted in 1995 was never approved since it was deemed 

incomplete by Region 2. 

The 1995 SIP included: 

1990 Baseline Emission Inventory * 

Projected Emission Inventory (1997,2000) * 

Control Measures (Federal Diesel Control Measures, NSR program (6 NYCRR Part 

231 ), New York City ban on apartment house incinerators ( 15 RCNY'3-0 1) 

Attainment Modeling Demonstration * 

Note: Part 5 model used; off-road emissions not .addressed 

• New York no longer operates the PM10 traffic-oriented FRM monitor at Madison 

A venue (design value site). The monitor has undergone modifications and 

doesn't meet FRM siting criteria. For all practical purposes, the monitor at 

Madison A venue is considered a Special Purpose Monitor (SPM). The only other 

nearby PM10 FRM monitor is located at Canal Street. 

• In a September 12,2002 letter to NYSDEC Director Warland, EPA concluded 

that NYC is maintaining PM-10 NAAQS and is not required to be reclassified to 

serious nonattainment. However the clean data determination cannot be used to 

redesignate to attainment at this time. The 3 most recent years of valid PM-1 0 

data from Madison Ave was 1996, 1997, 1998, with an annual arithmetic mean of 

49.7 g/m3

• Air quality data from 1999-2001 was not considered reliable due to 

local construction, etc. (i.e. could not be used for NAAQS determination). We 

also acknowledged that the Madison Ave monitor cannot be brought into 

compliance with siting criteria.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Each of the undersigned officers and directors of Applied Innovation Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby appoints William H. Largent and
Curtis A. Loveland as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, or any of them,
with power to act without the other, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact, in
his name and on his behalf, and in any and all capacities stated below, to sign
and to cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the
Company's annual report on Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2004, and any and all amendments thereto, hereby granting unto said attorneys,
and to each of them, full power and authority to do and perform in the name and
on behalf of the undersigned, in any and all such capacities, every act and
thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully as each
of the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to each such
attorney full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all
that either such attorney or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney in
counterparts if necessary, effective as of February 28, 2005.

DIRECTORS/OFFICERS:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Signature                                         Title
              ---------                                         -----
<S>                                    <C>


/s/ William H. Largent                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
------------------------------------   (Principal Executive Officer)
    William H. Largent


/s/ Andrew J. Dosch                    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
------------------------------------   (Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
    Andrew J. Dosch


/s/ Thomas W. Huseby                   Director
------------------------------------
    Thomas W. Huseby


/s/ Kenneth E. Jones                   Director
------------------------------------
    Kenneth E. Jones


/s/ Curtis A. Loveland                 Director
------------------------------------
    Curtis A. Loveland


/s/ Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.           Chairman of the Board
------------------------------------
    Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.


/s/ Richard W. Oliver                  Director
------------------------------------
    Richard W. Oliver


/s/ John D. Riedel                     Director
------------------------------------
    John D. Riedel


/s/ Alexander B. Trevor                Director
------------------------------------
    Alexander B. Trevor
</TABLE>
E.H. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160214

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.