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




                                                                Exhibit 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Shimmy Zimels, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of deltathree,
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 we 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 the 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: December 1, 2003                         /s/ Shimmy Zimels
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name: Shimmy Zimels
                                               Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration

# AGENCY:

Health Resources and Services Administration; Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting cancellation.

# SUMMARY:

                        This is to notify the public that the March 3, 2022, meeting of the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) is canceled and will be rescheduled. This meeting was announced in the                         **Federal Register**                        , Vol. 87, No. 20 on Monday, January 31, 2022 (FR Doc. 2022-01848 Filed 1-28-22). Future meetings will occur in June, September, and December of calendar year 2022 and were announced through the same                         **Federal Register**                         notice.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        CDR Reed Grimes, Designated Federal Official, ACCV, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone: (301) 443-6634 or email:                         *ACCV@HRSA.gov*.                    

Maria G. Button,

Director, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 2022-04105 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0468

SAT Date: 6/7/2013

Print Date: 7/2/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 2

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: SENS-S,L; MUTA; ONCO; DEVEL; MALE REPRO; LIVER; 

KIDNEY; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0468

FATE:

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 0.37 (E) 

S > 10 g/L at 25 C (E)

VP = 8.72 torr at 25 C (E)

BP = 138 C (E)

H = 1.95E-5 (E)

log Koc = 0.91 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)
log Fish BAF = 0.03 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 0

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = low

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 33 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 19 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 2 hr via OH radical

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 9.7 hr via ozone

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorbed all routes (analog). Concern for skin and lung 

sensitization, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental toxicity, male reproductive, liver, and 

kidney toxicity based on the epoxide moiety.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 4.4

daphnid 48-h LC50 >100

green algal 96-h EC50 >100

fish _ chronic value 0.37

daphnid _ chronic 

value

>10

algal _ chronic 

value

>10

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for vinyl ethers and 

monoepoxides; SAR chemical class = vinyl ether, monoepoxide; MW 114; log Kow = 0.37 

(EPI); liquid with mp unknown (P); S = 108 g/L at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations 

based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as 

CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

37

SARs vinyl ethers and monoepoxides

SAR Class vinyl ether, monoepoxide

Ecotox Category None
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
#### IN RE: Larry CHARLES, Petitioner

No. 17-1966

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

(Opinion filed: June 14, 2017)

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 25, 2017

Larry Charles, Pro Se

Simran Dhillon, Esq., Philadelphia County Office of District Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants-Respondents

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

In this mandamus petition, Larry Charles “seeks an Order to compel the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to issue a Certificate of Appealability” in connection with a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition he filed in 2013. Because mandamus may “not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process,” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459, (2004), we will deny Charles’ petition.

Charles filed a § 2254 petition in 2013, seeking to attack a 25-50 year sentence imposed after he pleaded no contest to various sex crimes in Philadelphia County. The District Court denied his petition and his request for a certificate of appealability. We denied his request for a certificate of appealability — concluding that “jurists of reason would not debate the District Court’s assessment of his constitutional claims” — and also denied his request for rehearing. C.A. No. 15-3064. The Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari, and also his petition for rehearing. Charles v. Harry, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 671, 196 L.Ed.2d 557, reh’g denied, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1369, 197 L.Ed.2d 547 (2017).

Charles has exhausted all avenues to appeal the District Court’s denial of his request for a certificate of appealability— and has lost. He may not now use mandamus as yet another attempt at an appeal. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576. We will deny his petition.1

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent,

1

. In the alternative, Charles asks us to recall our mandate denying his request for a certificate of appealability — a request that is "regarded as a second or successive application for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(b)." Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 553, 118 S.Ct 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Because Charles cannot meet § 2244(b)’s gatekeeping requirements — he does not claim to have newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence, or rely on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review — we will not recall our mandate. See United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 692 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 692

   To amend the International Financial Institutions Act to provide 
     instructions with respect to the U.S. policy on co-financing 
   arrangements at the multilateral development banks, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the International Financial Institutions Act to provide 
     instructions with respect to the U.S. policy on co-financing 
   arrangements at the multilateral development banks, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. U.S. POLICY ON CO-FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS AT THE MULTILATERAL 
              DEVELOPMENT BANKS.

    Title XVI of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 
U.S.C. 262p et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1634. U.S. POLICY ON CO-FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS AT THE 
              MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS.

    ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States 
Executive Directors at the multilateral development banks (as defined 
in section 1701(c)(4)) to use the voice and vote of the United States 
to vote against any program or project at the respective institution if 
it includes joint or parallel financing provided by the Asian 
Infrastructure Investment Bank unless the Secretary of the Treasury has 
certified to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate 
that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank--
            ``(1) has the authority and the resources to provide grants 
        and concessional assistance to countries eligible to borrow 
        from the International Development Association on terms similar 
        to those provided to these countries by the International 
        Development Association; and
            ``(2) has demonstrated a track record of providing such 
        assistance to these countries.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edward B. Arnold, Appellant, *v.*John M. Robertson, Respondent.

The rulings of this court, that error of law cannot be alleged upon appeal from an order and decision of an inferior court granting or refusing a new trial, where the trial was by jury, and the facts as well as the law were before the court, having been made sufficiently public to render them obligatory upon the public and the profession, if appeals from orders granting new trials are persisted in, instead of dismissals thereof, judgments absolute will be rendered against the appellants, in pursuance of their stipulations upon appeal. (Allen, J.; Peckham and Rapallo, JJ., concurring.)

(Submitted November 27, 1872;

decided December 3, 1872.)

*684Appeal from order of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and reversing an order denying a motion for a new trial, and granting a new trial. The court dismissed the appeal in" accordance with the rulings in *Wright*v. *Hunter*(46 N. Y., 409) and *Sands*v. *Crook*(46 id., 564), holding that for the present it was proper to follow the practice adopted in those-cases. 'Allen, J., who wrote opinion, held that sufficient publicity had been given to the rulings in those cases, and that in accordance with the intimation in *Dickson*v. *B. & S. A. R. R. Co.*(47 N. Y., 507), the privilege of a dismissal should now cease, and that where parties persisted in such appeals they should be held to their stipulations, and júdgments absolute should go, against them in this. Peokhám. and Rapallo, JJ., concurred.

*George W. Wvngate*.for the appellant.

*J. M.*Bobertson, respondent in person.

Allen, J.,

read opinion for affirmance, of order and. judgment absolute against plaintiff. Peokhám and Rapallo, JJ., "eonciirred, ■

For dismissal, Church, Ch. J.; Grover, Folg-er and Andrews, JJ.1

Appeal dismissed.
497 A.2d 482

#### William Everett ELLWOOD, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 16,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 13, 1985.

Jerome James LaCorte and John L. Kopolow, Asst.-Public Defenders, Baltimore (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, Baltimore, on brief), for appellant.

*43Carmina Szunyog Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and heard, it is this 13th day of September, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, petition having been improvidently granted.
#### Cain *vs.*Hays.

Casej

[Mr. Owsley for plaintiff: no appearance for defendant;]

From the Circuit Court eor Knox County.

*October*6.

Any person injured by the erection of a mill dam (without his consent,) may re cover damages, notwithstanding the mill was duly authorized, & altho’ the *inqni*
      *339sition were of opinion that ho would sustain no damage: But hist, consent to the erection of the dam,willamount to *a*license, which may be pleaded in bar., of the action.

*338Chief Justice Robertson

delivered *the*Opinion *of ¿he Cóurti*

This is ah action on the case *for*consequential damagd arising from the dam of a water grist mill; and the only question presented for corisideration, is, whether the defendant’s plea, sustained by the Circuit Court, is sufficient to bar the action.

Had the plea relied—as, upon first reading, we thought it did—altogether on the fact, that the mill had been *339authorised by the County Court, in a regular proceeding, according to the statute, it would not have been good; because, nevertheless, any person who had not consented to the erection of the dam, would have a perfect right to maintain a suit for any damage he may have sustained, even though the inquisitors had, as alleged, reported that, *in their*opinion, he would not be damnified *-—(8tji section of an act of*1797, 2 *Statute Law,*1215.)

But upon a more careful scrutiny of the plea, we understand it to aver, also, that the plaintiff, being present at the inquisition on the writ of *ad quod damnumi. consented*to the erection of the dam; and such consent, amounting, as we think, to a *license,*must be deemed a waiver of all claim to any damages, that might happen to accrue to the plaintiff, in consequence of the erection of the dam.

Wherefore, in this view, considering the plea substantially good, the judgment' thereon in bar of the action,., must baaffirmed.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-1077

Lower Tribunal No. CF06-009369-XX

_____________________________

MILTON JEROME BATTLES,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Melissa Gravitt, Judge.

July 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, BROWNLEE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.

Milton Jerome Battles, Graceville, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6864 

To amend the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act to require 

the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to testify on an 

annual basis before the Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2023 

Mr. LAWLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act to require the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development to testify on an annual basis before the 

Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HUD Accountability 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6864 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO TESTIFY. 

2 Section 7 of the Department of Housing and Urban 

3 Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535) is amended by adding 

4 at the end the following new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(u) ANNUAL TESTIMONY.—The Secretary shall ap6 pear before the Committee on Financial Services of the 

7 House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 

8 Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at an annual 

9 hearing and present testimony regarding the operations 

10 of the Department during the preceding year, including 

11 regarding the following topics: 

12 ‘‘(1) The physical condition of all public hous13 ing and other housing assisted by the Department. 

14 ‘‘(2) The financial health of the mortgage in15 surance funds of the FHA. 

16 ‘‘(3) Oversight by the Department of grantees 

17 and sub-grantees engaging in waste, fraud, and 

18 abuse. 

19 ‘‘(4) Ongoing activities of the Department, as 

20 appropriate.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18 - 0346 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STACY MICHAEL TRUJILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until April 8 , 2020 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 6 2020

03/06/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0346
<PAGE>   1




                                  Exhibit 11.1

                       Digital Transmission Systems, Inc.

              STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                       For periods ending March 31, 1997

                                              THREE MONTHS        NINE MONTHS
                                              ------------        -----------

Common shares outstanding
 at the beginning of the period                 3,959,640           3,920,700

Net effect of shares granted for
 options exercised during the          
 period                                            64,643              47,123
                                               ----------          ----------
Total                                           4,024,283           3,967,823
                                               ==========          ==========
Net income (loss) applicable to
 common stockholders                          ($  187.000)        ($1,532,000)
                                               ==========          ==========

Net income (loss) per share applicable
 to common stockholders                       ($     0.05)        ($     0.39)
                                               ==========          ==========
#### Oceana A. Bancroft, App’lt, *v.*The Home Benefit Association of New York, Resp’t.

*Wm. G. Wilson,*for app’lt; *Osborn E. Bright,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 34 N. Y. State Rep., 459.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

             CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Six Months Ended Six Months Ended
                                                               June 30, 2002    June 30, 2001
                                                              ---------------- ----------------
<S>                                                           <C>              <C>
Net (loss) income from continuing operations.................      $   --           $  (5)
Add:
   Interest expense..........................................          64              94
   Income tax provision (benefit)............................          --              (3)
   Unremitted earnings from equity method investments........          --              (1)
                                                                   ------           -----
       Earnings as defined...................................      $   64           $  85
                                                                   ======           =====
Interest expense.............................................      $   64           $  94
                                                                   ------           -----
       Fixed charges as defined..............................      $   64           $  94
                                                                   ======           =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges from continuing operations       1.00x            .90x
                                                                   ======           =====
</TABLE>
#### JONES ET AL VS. STONE ET AL.

Appeal from Johnson county.

*Distress Warrant.-*— In distress proceedings where the citation does not issue cotemporaneously with the distress warrant, the warrant is a nullity.

Opinion by

White, P. J.