alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**     I, Thomas A. Andruskevich, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 8, 2005         /s/ Thomas A. Andruskevich   Thomas A. Andruskevich   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022002EN.01004901.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/49

---

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Compass Tex v EUIPO (Trusted Handwork)

(Case T-704/21)

(2022/C 2/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Compass Tex Ltd (Tsuen Wan, Hongkong, China) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Trusted Handwork — Application for registration No 18 244 483

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 in Case R 0034/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1 003 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 064 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2010** 

**- NM** 
**- 182** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 47632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19305]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, September 10, 2014; 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Atomic Testing Museum, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las 
Vegas, Nevada 89119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 
232 Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 
630-0522; Fax (702) 295-5300 or Email: NSSAB@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the 
Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the 
areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.

Tentative Agenda

1. Fiscal Year 2015 Work Plan Development
2. Election of Officers
3. Recommendation Development for Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program 
Facility Evaluation Improvement Opportunities--Work Plan Item 
7

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 
minutes allotted for public comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at 
the address listed above or at the following Web site: http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 8, 2014.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-19305 Filed 8-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00364-CR

THOMAS CLARK

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR10001771-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 26, 2018
### INVITATION: SNAP STAKEHOLDER MEETING

Hosted By: U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA), Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Stratospheric Protection Division

Date: September 11, 2015

Time: 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (please plan to arrive by 9:00 a.m. to sign in)

Location: Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005

Background: EPA is hosting a meeting for intere sted stakeholders to exchange information on the Significant New Altern atives Policy (SNAP) program. During the past 12 months, EPA has taken four se parate actions under the SNAP program, to support the President’s June 2013 Clim ate Action Plan, which directs EPA to “use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.” As pa rt of SNAP’s conti nuous efforts, we are seeking to engage with stakeholders as we consider various next steps.

Logistics: Please RSVP by September 4 th to Paul-Harvey Weiner with a direct reply to this e-mail ( weiner.paul-harvey@epa.gov ) or by telephone at (202) 343- 9740. Please include your name and affilia tion. You are welcome to share this invitation with other interested particip ants; however, please ask them to RSVP by September 4 th as well. We look forward to a pr oductive and informative meeting.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(c)

           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of our reserve report to the interest of Plains Resources
Inc. and Subsidiary (collectively the Company) dated March 7, 1996, relating to
the estimated quantities of certain of the Company's proved reserves of oil and
gas and the related estimates of future net revenue and present values thereof
for certain periods, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1995, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated
Financial Statements of the Company in such annual report. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading of "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.

                                       NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                       /s/ Frederic D. Sewell
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Frederic D. Sewell
                                       President

Dallas, Texas
March 20, 1996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 18-0582 

JEFFREY INCE, NANCY SKARVAN-INCE 

and LEONARD SKARVAN, 

Plaintiffs and Appellees, 

ORDER v. 

THOMAS JOLLEY and KELLY JOLLEY, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

FILED 

SEP 13 2024 

Bowen C3reenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montania -

Counsel for Appellees Jeffrey Ince, Nancy Skarvan-Ince, and Leonard Skarvan has 

filed notice that the case before the Montana Bankruptcy Court has been discharged, and 

the claims against Appellants Thomas Jolley and Kelly Jolley have been satisfied. 

Accordingly, this appeal is rendered moot. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Thomas and Kelly Jolley 

and to all counsel of record. 

DATED this I 3 'day of September, 2024. 

For the Court, 

9')7

Chief Justice 

09/13/2024

Case Number: DA 18-0582
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 17, 

2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00874-CV

HARDAWAY NET-WORKS, INC., Appellant

V.

THE CONCENTRIC3 GROUP, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-32266

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 1, 2013. On December 6, 

2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the parties have 

reached an agreement to compromise and settle their differences arising from the 

underlying lawsuit. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed with prejudice.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown.
#### S.K.P. v. K.M.P.

1007 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

Reargument Denied 11/30/2017

2008-FC-000584-15 (York)

Affirmed/Reversed/Remanded
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

<TABLE>
<S>                                     <C>
H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
333 Clay Street, Suite 3850, Houston, Texas 77002 . TEL. (713) 739-1000 . FAX (713) 739-6112
</TABLE>

                   CONSENT OF H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

We hereby consent to the use of the name H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and of
references to H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and to the inclusion of and
references to our report dated February 18, 2002, prepared for Contour Energy
Co. in the Contour Energy Co. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001.


                                        H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                        Texas Registration Number F-000637


                                        By:  /s/ Marilyn Wilson
                                           -----------------------------------
                                        Marilyn Wilson, PE
                                        President and Chief Operating Officer


March 27, 2002
Houston, Texas
'f"^^ ^T^'c ti' "^`^f'	

. .I ^ Jr	^1 (^	+ 

^ i	k?^	^	

^ ~ U	

14^ ^ ^ • L! ^-j 

CITY GF SOUTH BEND 

PETE BUTTIGIEG, MAYOR 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

The Honorable Gina Mc arthy 

EPA Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Prote tion Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave 

Washington, DC 20460 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportatio ri

U.S. Departinent of Trans ortation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket ID No. EPA—flQ—OAR-2014-0827 and NHTSA-2014-0132 

Dear Administrator McCaohy and Secretary Foxx: 

We commend your efforts to implement strong, achievable fuel efficiency and emission 

standards for medium- an heavy-duty vehicles. This new proposed rule demonstrates America's 

leadership in a cleaner and inore efficient transportation sector. The new standards will help 

cities like ours that use M dium- and Heavy-duty trucks daily for trash collection, snow removal 

and other municipal functi ns, save millions of taxpayer dollars yearly. 

With medium-and heavy-quty vehicles accounting for twenty percent of US oil consumption but 

only five percent of vehicl s, 1 the opportunity for improvement is significant. Requiring 

increased efficiency in a fl xible, cost-effective way helps make U.S. businesses located in South 

Bend more competitive gl bally — especially beneficial to the rapidly-growing distribution and 

logistics companies that o erate in our region. 

Locally, air quality affects our County, with ozone and particulates adversely impacting human 

health approximately eight days per year. 2 With a diverse community and a poverty rate of 27.8 

percent, 3 we recognize tha we must protect the health of vulnerable populations while being 

good stewards of limited t xpayer resources. Here in South Bend we are already replacing much 

of our fleet with cleaner-bi4ming and lower-cost compressed natural gas vehicles. 

' EPA and DOT propose greenhou gas and fuel efticiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. NHTSA. 

z Atnerican Lung Association, 20111 State of the Air, St. Joseph County Indiana 

3 U. S. Cetlsus Bureau, American C tnmunity Survey, 5-Year Estimates 

1400 COUNTY—CITY BILDING . 227 W JF.FFERSON BOUI.EVARD • SOUTH BEND, 1NDIANA 466oi 

PHOrIF t574/2 35-9 26i - Fax 574J2 35-9 8 9 2 ' TTY 574/235-5567
Thank you for your work 

standards for trucks. We i 

Transportation to finalize 

2016. 

Sincerel^ 

P' ft eg 

Mayor

iosing strong fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emission, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of 

,ig Phase Two standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks in
I I

1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule
47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-30536 Summary Calendar

____________________

RUCHELLE CINQUE MAGEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRUCE BICKHAM, INC.; DELOS JOHNSON; DUANE BLAIR, Sheriff of Washington Parish,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-3263 E

September 20, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *- 2 -

Ruchell Cinque Magee, California prisoner #A92051, appeals an

adverse summary judgment. We review that judgment d e novo ,

applying the same standard used by the district court. E .g. ,

Elliot v. Lynn

, 38 F.3d 188, 190 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied

, 115

S. Ct. 1976 (1995).

This notwithstanding, we will not raise and otherwise address

legal issues that the appellant has failed to assert. When an

appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s

analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the

judgment. B rinkman v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner

, 813 F.2d

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Magee does not address the merits of the

district court’s opinion. He contends instead that res judicata

should not apply to bar his claim. The district court, however,

dismissed Magee’s claim not only on res judicata, but also on

jurisdictional grounds.

In any event, the district court concluded correctly that it

lacked jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack on state court

judgments. L iedtke v. State Bar of Texa s , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th

Cir.) cert. denied

, 115 S. Ct. 271 (1994). Magee’s §1983 claim is

“inextr icably intertwined” with the state court judgments; thus,

the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his complaint.

Reed v. Terrel

, 759 F.2d 472, 473-74 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 474

U.S. 946 (1985).- 3 -

Magee’s motions for appointment of counsel, appointment of a

paralegal or investigator, production and inspection of documents

and records, to reinstate his appeal, and for judicial notice of

the record are DENIED

.

Magee is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, he is cautioned further to review any pending appeals to

ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because

they have been previously decided by this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8836 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit estate recovery 

from certain expansion individuals under the Medicaid program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2020 

Mr. KING of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

estate recovery from certain expansion individuals under 

the Medicaid program. 

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 ‘‘Housing And Medicaid 

5 Legislation for Expansion Targets Act’’ or the ‘‘HAMLET 

6 Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8836 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING ESTATE RECOVERY FROM CERTAIN 

2 EXPANSION INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE MED3 ICAID PROGRAM. 

4 Section 1917 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 1396p) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

6 subsection: 

7 ‘‘(i) PROHIBITION ON ESTATE RECOVERY FROM

8 CERTAIN EXPANSION INDIVIDUALS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

10 provision of this section, no recovery or adjustment 

11 may be made with respect to the estate of an indi12 vidual described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) 

13 for medical assistance furnished under a State plan 

14 (or waiver of such plan) under this title. 

15 ‘‘(2) COMPENSATION FOR PAST RECOVERY.—A 

16 State shall provide for the repayment of any 

17 amounts recovered or adjusted during the period be18 ginning on January 1, 2014, and ending on the date 

19 of the enactment of this subsection from the estate 

20 of an individual described in paragraph (1) for med21 ical assistance furnished under the State plan of 

22 such State (or waiver of such plan).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS