alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, James Joyce, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Aethlon Medical, Inc.;

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 functions):

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

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

Date: February 14, 2005

                                        /S/ JAMES A. JOYCE
                                        --------------------
                                        JAMES A. JOYCE
                                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                        (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Marsha MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

December 10, 2010 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 451 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 451, Surface Coating of 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 

451 was amended on October 28, 2010. Please also forward the information for this submittal 

to U.S. EPA. 

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851 or 

kjwilliams@airquality.org. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 

1. SIP Checklist Rule 451 

2. Final Version of Rule 451 

3. Underline/Strikeout Version of Rule 451 

4. Public Notice Evidence 

5. Resolution 

6. Written Public Comments 

7. Rule Evaluation Form 

8. Board Memo 

9. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
#### William PATTERSON, Appellant, v. Floyd SIMONS, Appellee.

No. 12520.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 4, 1956.

Hugh K. Davidson, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Marvin E. Larivee, Robert D. Anspach, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal from a judgment for $3,500 damages entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on the verdict of a jury in favor of the appellee, the oral arguments and briefs of the attorneys and the entire record in the case have been carefully considered;

And no reversible error appearing in the conduct of the trial, and the verdict of the jury being supported by substantial evidence;

The judgment is affirmed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02244**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 02244\02244_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 02244\02244_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02244\02244_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02244\02244_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 02244\02244_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02244\02244_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02244\02244_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02244\02244_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02244\02244_Part H.xls Plant certification statement x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen D2-3 CBI 0Fe Report .pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen D2-3 CBI ABMet Pilot Report .pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram C2-31-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram C2-31-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram C2-31-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram C2-31-4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram C2-31-5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram D-7.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Diagram WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Bowen Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\GPC 2009 Form 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02244\Supporting Documents\Transmittal letter - Georgia Power.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Legal Resource Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 194M e 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10018 c/w No. 10-10019 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DEMONDRA LANA ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-247-2 USDC No. 4:04-CR-183-2 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal PublicDefender appointed to represent Demondra Lana Allen has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United Statesv. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Allen has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 19, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 19, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 10-10018 c/w No. 10-10019

2 assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**1008 CAF 13-00423**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF TALEEYA M.

-------------------------------------- CAYUGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HUMAN SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; RANESHA S., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAMS HEINL MOODY BUSCHMAN P.C., AUBURN (MARIO J. GUTIERREZ OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. FREDERICK R. WESTPHAL, COUNTY ATTORNEY, AUBURN (DIANE K. DONNELLY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. SUSAN JAMES, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WATERLOO.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, J.), entered March 1, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to her daughter on the ground of permanent neglect. The mother stipulated to the finding of permanent neglect, but we reject petitioner’s contention that she thereby waived her right to appeal Family Court’s determination terminating her parental rights ( cf. Matter of Edelyn S ., 62 AD3d 713, 713; see generally Family Ct Act § 1112). In any event, the evidence supports the court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.] , 106 AD3d 1524, 1525). The mother’s short-term progress in her service plan “ ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child’s unsettled familial status’ ” ( id

. at 1525).

Entered: October 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Anthony S. PAPINEAU v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-15-1079

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.
Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Current as of August 2022 Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 607-2612

Dual Status Commander (DSC)

OVERVIEW

A DSC is an officer of the Army National Guard (ARNG), Air National 

Guard (ANG), commissioned officer of the Regular Army or Regular Air 

Force who has completed specialized training and certification. DSCs are 

jointly managed by the commander of U.S. Northern Command and the 

chief of the National Guard Bureau and may, by law, serve in two statuses 

(federal and state) simultaneously. 

SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE

The president and the governor of the state must both agree to the establishment of a DSC. DSC appointment can be terminated by the secretary 

of defense or the governor at any time. 

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed in December 

2011, facilitated the use of DSCs to provide unity of effort between state 

and federal forces in achieving common objectives in a disaster response 

or in supporting a national event. 

MULTIPLE STATE EVENT

In the event of a multi-state disaster or national event requiring a DSC, 

separate DSCs would be appointed to command in each of the affected 

states due to state law prohibitions (where appropriate/where required). 

Consistent with current laws and procedures, the governor of a state does 

not use the DSC to request Department of Defense forces or equipment. 

ORIGINS: The DSC was first implemented for the G8 Economic 

Summit in June 2004. Brig. Gen. Terry Nesbitt (Georgia NG) commanded more than 4,800 Soldiers and Airmen, 317 NG personnel 

from other states, 43 members of the Georgia Defense Force and 

approximately 2,400 Title 10 personnel, including ARNG and ANG 

units mobilized under T10. 

State Status

A DSC is a member of the state’s 

chain of command, subject to 

the orders of the governor and 

adjutant general of the DSC’s 

state, and exercises command 

of assigned NG forces. The 

governors of 53 states/territories 

have established standing memorandum of agreement with the 

secretary of defense for the DSC 

appointment status command. 

Title 32, United States Code, 

Section 325, authorizes a National Guard officer to be placed on 

active component without losing 

their Guard component status. 

Federal Status

The DSC is a member of the federal chain of command, subject 

to the orders of the president, 

the secretary of defense, and 

the supported combatant commander. They are subject to the 

orders of the commander of U.S. 

Northern Command when in the 

48 contiguous states, Alaska, the 

District of Columbia and the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. DSCs are subject 

to the commander of U.S. Pacific 

Command when in Hawaii and 

the territory of Guam. In addition, 

DSCs exercise command of assigned federal military forces. 

An active-duty (Title 10) Army or 

Air officer is authorized to accept 

a commission in the NG of a 

state without losing his/her active 

component status.
Sanford Benjamin GLOSTER, DC# D07542, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2961

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**INFORMATION CONCERNING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**

We have been unable to obtain, after reasonable efforts, the re-issued report or consent of Arthur Andersen LLP related to the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2001, included in this report on Form 10-K. Therefore, we have included a copy of their previously issued report.

Because we have been unable to obtain the above-referenced consent of Arthur Andersen LLP, we are required to disclose any resulting limitations on recovery by investors. Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 allows, under certain circumstances, a person acquiring a security to assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading. Because Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to being named in this Form 10-K, it will not be liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements or omissions of material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP.
|                                    |
|------------------------------------|
|                                    |  |
| I, Phillip G. Creek, certify that: |
|                               |   |
| 1.                                 | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of M/I Homes, Inc.; |
|                               |   |
| 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; and |
|                               |   |
| 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. |
|                               |   |

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |  |  |
| /s/Phillip G. Creek                                  |   | Date:  March 7, 2014 |
| Phillip G. Creek                                     |   |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1400

TSEDEKE TESHONE MEKONNEN, a/k/a Tsedeke Teshone Mekonen,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 29, 2016

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Lance L. Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tsedeke Teshone Mekonnen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s 

denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal.* 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript 

of Mekonnen’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We 

conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling 

contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re Mekonnen (B.I.A. Mar. 

17, 2015). 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.

PETITION DENIED

 * Mekonnen does not challenge the denial of relief under the 

Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, review of that issue 

is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th 

Cir. 2004).
ALD
- 161 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 1284

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. GILBERT ROBINSON,

Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 03

- cr - 00121

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 1 0.6

April 19, 2012 Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 2, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

. In May 2004, Gilbert Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deliver in excess of 50 grams of crack cocaine and h eroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court sentenced him to 292 months of imprisonment , and we affirmed the sentence

. United2

States v. Robinson , 186 F. App’x 240 (3d Cir. 2006). Robinson then filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and we denied Robinson’s application for a certificate of appealability. He has since filed several unsuccessful challenges to his conviction. On November 23, 2011, Robinson filed a motion for the recusal of the District Court Judge pursuant to 28 U.S .C. §§ 144 & 455. The District Court dismissed the motion because there were no matters pending. Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Robins on’s motion to recuse. As noted by the District Court, there were no matters pending at the time Robinson filed his motion to recuse. Moreover, Robinson has put forth no allegations that would support recusal. U nder 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge should recus e if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or he has a personal bias. Under § 144, a judge should recuse if he has a personal bias or prejudice against the litigant. Robinson’s displeasure with the District Court’s legal rulings is not an adequ ate basis for recusal. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom
Inc. , 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000) . “ [O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings , do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep

- seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) . Furthermore, we note that even if the Dis trict3

Court Judge had recused himself in response to Robinson’s motion, the recusal would not invalidate Robinson’s conviction and sentence or provide Robinson with an avenue to challenge them. Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial ques tion presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For essentially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court ’ s November 28, 2011, order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.