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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, M. G. Duncan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Milastar Corporation and Subsidiary;

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 officer 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 (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 officer 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 function):

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 12, 2003 |  | /s/ M. G. DUNCAN       
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | M. G. Duncan           
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
Date: September 25, 2015 Subject: R ecord s f or th e Propo se d Rul e " Oil and N atural G as Sector: E mi ss ion .

**~** St and ard s for N ew and

**Modi fi~So** ces" David ozz· / / /



# ~ ,__--



## /~?{ **-.** Group Lea er - · Fue ls and



## Inc·n~tlon Group USEPA Offic e of Air QualityJJ&fuing and Standard s From: To: Docket: EP A-HQ-OAR-201 0-0505 On September 18,2015, the EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule issued under the Clean Air Act entitled "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources." 80 Fed. Reg. 56,593 (September 18, 2015). The EPA recently discovered that a document, dated September 16, 2015, and entitled "Agency Meeting with Earthworks Regarding Methane" was mistakenly not placed in the docket for this action. The absence ofthis document in the docket is an error. In addition, the EPA discovered that the document, dated August 2015, and entitled "Background Technical Support Document for the Proposed New Source Performance Standards 40 CFR Part 60, subpart OOOOa" Document ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-5021, contained redline strike out text in the table of contents and in the numbering of one table and footnote. The EPA is including a clean copy of this document in the docket. The EPA is therefore adding these documents to the docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010- 0505 as part of the record for this proposed action.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14981]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34, 489]


The Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company, Health Care 
Division, Greenville, SC; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 27, 1998 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on April 15, 1998 on behalf of workers at Proctor & Gamble, 
Health Care Division, Greenville, South Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 27th day of May, 1998
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-14981 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
No. 10-5103.

#### John Witherow, Petitioner v. Gregory Smith, Warden.

562 U.S. 904, 131 S. Ct. 241,

178 L. Ed. 2d 161,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6028.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# DLA Aviation and Distribution representation at the 16th Luther G. Jones Army Aviation Depot Forum

/ Published Dec. 15, 2021
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, 
Key Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, leaders attended the 16th Luther G. Jones Army Aviation Depot Forum Dec. 7 and 8.

The two-day business event was sponsored by the Army Aviation Association of America and focused on Army Aviation maintenance and sustainment. The event attracted hundreds of attendees and over 20 exhibitors, from both the military and commercial aviation industry, to safely network in person to resolve complex trends to extend the platform life and lethality of today’s Army Aviation Fleet, and to inject future capabilities into the Army Future Vertical Lift programs.

Representatives of DLA Aviation and Distribution major subordinate commands who attended the event include Ron Mailhiot, U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 3 Narciso Rivas, Daniel Schell, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Cody Autrey and Jeremy Beckwith. They were joint exhibitors for the duration of the forum and participated in several joint session discussions to exploit readiness opportunities such as additive manufacturing, simulation training environments, commercial industry support, theater aviation support group maintenance group partnerships, and prognostic predictive maintenance.

DLA attendance not only fostered the local relationships within the Army’s Aviation leadership, but it also served as an opportunity to partner with Defense Department and commercial sectors, modernize and sustain the existing fleet, and to propel best practices into the Army’s Future Vertical Lift programs.
# SDDC Deputy Commander visits DLA Distribution, tours EDC

/ Published Nov. 1, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Army Col. Lillard D. Evans, deputy commander of Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, visited Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, Oct. 15, for a general overview on DLA Distribution’s mission and function and a discussion about consolidation and containerization point eligibility and the need for a west coast port of embarkment. 

During his visit, Evans received the DLA Distribution command overview highlighting Distribution’s worldwide network detailing special functions the command provides such as kitting and hazardous material handling and detailed transportation coordination that Distribution provides for all of DLA. During the discussion on the West Coast port of embarkment, Evans surmised that SDDC can have the most influence on process issues. “We have a ton of people making sure the gates are working.” 

Additionally, Evans participated in a walking tour of DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania’s Eastern Distribution Center, the largest warehouse in the Department of Defense. While at the EDC, Evans learned of the receiving, processing, storage, retrieval and out loading operations, and saw the full distribution supply chain in action. He also passed by the warehouse’s key locations, including the consolidation and containerization point, the high-rise storage and retrieval system, and the air line of communication pallet build area. 

“One of the things from an SDDC perspective,” said Col. Evans, “is for us to synchronize the efforts on our distribution mission, particularly when we’re taking a look at our booking side of the house and how DLA does direct booking into the system. I wanted to look at that and I really wanted to take a look at the warehouse to see how the warehouse operated in general.”

According to SDDC Command Affairs, their organization averages about 20 million square feet of deployment and redeployment cargo movements each year, or roughly 314 vessel operations per year, all without owning a single truck, train, barge or ship. The mission is accomplished, they say, through coordination and leveraging the capability of the commercial transportation industry and other military assets to create an efficient flow of materials worldwide. 

Commissioned as a transportation officer in 1990, Evans says he understands the importance of working closely with every organization in the logistics chain.

“We have a distribution and a deployment mission,” he said. “DLA is primarily distribution. We look forward to working with DLA in the future and making sure that what they do is never interrupted by what SDDC can provide for them.”
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 30, 2013

t0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

146839

In re

SC: 146839

DYLAN MARCELLIS KALLABAT COA: 310332 

Oakland CC: 2010-775275-DL

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 09-10979.

#### Milton Matos Montalvo, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 127,

178 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6229.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.

Same case below, 604 Pa. 386, 986 A.2d 84.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 3 0 8 0 6 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. W I L L I A M H O W A R D P E N N , J R

. , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f L o u i s i a n a U S D C N o
. 6 : 9 6

- C R

- 6 0 0 0 5

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , P R A D O , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
W i l l i a m H o w a r d P e n n , J r
. , f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r # 0 9 1 7 2

- 0 3 5 , a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) b a s e d o n t h e a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e c r a c k c o c a i n e G u i d e l i n e
. H e a r g u e s t h a t , i n l i g h t o f U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

w a s a u t h o r i z e d t o r e d u c e h i s s e n t e n c e b a s e d o n t h e n e w a d v i s o r y g u i d e l i n e s

r a n g e a n d a f

t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s
. H e f u r t h e r U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 20 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-30806 Document: 00511086668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010N o
. 0 9

- 3 0 8 0 6

c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s c a r e e r o f f e n d e r s t a t u s d i d n o t p r e c l u d e t h e c o u r t f r o m r e d u c i n g h i s s e n t e n c e
. P e n n c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e s e i s s u e s a r e f o r e c l o s e d b y t h i s c o u r t ’ s p r e c e d e n t , b u t r a i s e s t h e i s s u e s i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e t h e m f o r f u r t h e r r e v i e w
. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. A n d e r s o n , 5 9 1 F

. 3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 0

- 9 1 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 9 ) , a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. D o u b l i n , 5 7 2 F

. 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 6

- 3 9 ( 5 t h C i r
. ) , c e r t

. d e n i e d , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 5 1 7 ( 2 0 0 9 )

. A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 09-30806 Document: 00511086668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
#### People v Cartel

4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1110 (Cayuga)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)
Enclosure

EPA Response to Petition for Reco nsideration from U.S. Ply, Inc.

By letter dated July 17, 2012, U.S. Ply, Inc., of Br idgeport, Wise County, Texas petitioned the EPA to reconsider the final area designa tion for Wise County in the Dallas Forth-Worth (DFW) area. For the reasons discussed below, the EPA is denying the Petition.

Issue: The Petitioner claims that th ere was insufficient EPA analysis of facts and scientific and technical

data and that in lieu of a formal EPA study and revi ew, many incorrect and unrealistic assumptions were relied upon to support the EPA’s final decision for Wise County. Furthermore, th e Petitioner states that information was submitted to the EPA by Texas and others affirming that the EPA’s original

conclusions were not suffi ciently supported by scientific facts and data.

Response: We note that your petition provides no details specifying in what manner you believe the EPA analysis was deficient or specifically what information submitted by Texas and others demonstrate that the EPA’s original conclusions were not supported. Thus, it does not provide a sufficient basis for

reconsideration. The record demonstrates that th e EPA considered information and comments submitted by the State of Texas, the Texas Commission on Envi ronmental Quality and other interested parties during the public comment period. See our final DFW Technical S upport Document (TSD) titled “Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas Final Area Designation s for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards” in the docket for this action at page s 4-20. As stated in our TSD, the 2008 Emissions Inventory for Wise County shows that Wise County ’s nitrogen oxide emissi ons of 11,911 tons per year (tpy) are the 6th highest of the 19 county DFW Combined Stat istical Area and the County’s volatile organic compound emissions of 17,609 tpy are th e fourth highest of the 19 counties. See TSD pages 6-7.

The TSD demonstrates that there are six ozone mon itors violating the standa rd in the two counties adjacent to Wise County (TSD Figure 1, page 3) and not es that Wise County is less than 1⁄2 mile from a violating monitor with a design value of 0.085 pa rts per million (TSD 2008 to 2010 data, pages 5 and 23). We also evaluated meteorological transpor t patterns during exceedances using NOAA’s HYSPLIT model. These patterns indicate th at emissions from Wise County are transported to the DFW ozone monitors violating the standard based on 2008-2010 data, and we conclude that the Wise County emissions are large enough that they can cont ribute to ozone exceedances on certain days. See TSD pages 14-17, 19, 20, and 23.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (3)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 23,
2010 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(4)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. Hignett, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
# DLA CFC campaign starts strong in national capital region

/ Published Nov. 5, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency’s Combined Federal Campaign is off to a strong start two weeks into the annual charity drive. By Oct. 30, employees had contributed almost $59,000, or 23%, toward a $260,000 goal for those in the national capital region.

“We’re already seeing a tremendous show of support and generosity from employees so far,” DLA Campaign Manager Gordon Weiss said, adding that he believes many early donations were from employees who regularly give to the campaign.

The director’s staff is leading donations with over $14,000 in contributions, followed by DLA Energy with over $12,000 and DLA Human Resources with $9,000.

DLA employees in the national capital region donated over $274,000 of the $34 million contributed in the area during the 2019 campaign. An additional $1 million was raised through the special solicitation in spring to help charities serving those in need during the pandemic.

CFC coordinators and keyworkers assigned to every directorate will continue reaching out to employees throughout November and December to encourage others and offer help placing donations, Weiss said.

CFC is the world’s largest, most successful workplace charity campaign. Donors can choose from over 20,000 nonprofit charitable organizations that support causes ranging from homeless veterans and endangered species to cancer. Since it began in 1961, federal employees have raised over $8.4 billion.

Employees can donate through Jan. 15 by credit card or payroll deduction on a one-time or reoccurring basis at GiveCFC.org or the CFC Giving Mobile App on their Apple or Android cell phone. Both options are secure and allow users to search for specific charities or view a list of organizations that support specific categories in their choice of geographic locations. Employees can also donate volunteer hours rather than money by selecting a charity with a hand icon next to it.

Each week throughout the campaign will be dedicated to raising awareness for causes like ending hunger, environmental protection and human rights. For more information, go to GiveCFC.org or contact a keyworker in your directorate.
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00261

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

R.B. AND B.B.,

CHILDREN §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 3 RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appella nt has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. After reviewing the motion, the

Court is of the opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is

granted , and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42. 1 (a).

Opinion del ivered November 30, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 30 , 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 00261

- CV

IN THE INTE REST OF R.B. AND B.B ., CHILDREN

Appeal from the 3rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014C

- 1210)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being cons idered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J ., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50498 Summary Calendar

RICHARD CONNER; CHRIS CONNER, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS, ET AL., Defendants, TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS; JOHN DOES 1 TO 10; FRED MCAFEE, Travis County Sheriff’s Deputy, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 95-CV-648

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * As an initial matter, this court must address the basis of its jurisdiction over this appeal. Cantu v. Rocha , 77 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir. 1996). With respect to the portion of the appeal challenging the denial of summary judgment based on McAFee andNo. 96-50498 - 2 - Keel’s qualified and official immunity, the order is immediately appealable as based on an issue of law despite the district court’s determination that disputes of fact remain. Id. at 804; Behrens v. Pelletier , 116 S. Ct. 834, 840 (1996); Johnson v. Jones , 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2159 (1996). The district court did not err by denying summary judgment on the issues of qualified immunity. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Conner, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether McAfee and Keel’s conduct was objectively reasonable or in good faith. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dept. , 86 F.3d 469, 472-74(5th Cir. 1996); Baker v. Putnal , 75 F.3d 190, 199 (5th Cir. 1996); City of Lancaster v. Chambers , 883 S.W.2d, 650, 656 (Tex. 1994). APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
164 A.3d 390

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. IGNAT SAFAROV, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 16, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.