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



EXHIBIT 31.1 Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer I, Norbert E. Woodhams, Sr. certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amendment to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of
Pierre Foods, 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.
    
    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;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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  4.
    
    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 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. /s/ Norbert E. Woodhams, Sr.
Norbert E. Woodhams, Sr.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
 Date: October 15, 2004 5
# Women’s History Month panel addresses advocacy, equity, diversity, inclusion 

/ Published March 19, 2024
PHILADELPHIA, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support commemorated Women’s History Month on March 13 with an event that included a diverse panel of nine female employees for a question-and-answer session and award ceremony honoring a few of the organization’s outstanding leaders.

Joanne Anello, Command Support Office division chief, posed questions to panelists that included a range of topics like work-life balance, advice for future generations, and increasing reliance through adversity.

“You’re so much stronger than you think you are, you can do it,” Judith Flores, Procurement Process Support procurement analyst and one of the panelists said. “Journalling can help a lot. You go back and you reflect on your writings, reflect on all that you’ve been through. You then realize how strong you really are.”

Additional panelists included: Nicole Blake, Pathways to Career Excellence contract specialist;  Duwenavue Sante Johnson, Flag Room presidential hand embroidery artist; Michele Haye, Command Support Office management analyst; Maria Aguayo, Clothing and Textiles contracting officer; Dr. Sharon Forde-Atikosse, Construction and Equipment contracting officer; Yvonne Poplawski, Collective Medical Customer Operations Foreign Military Sales/VA division chief; and Yasmin Dossa, Procurement Process Support contract price cost analyst.

In response to what advice panelists would give to their 25-year-old self, Aguayo gave these words.

“First and foremost, do not be afraid,” she said. “Do not be afraid to express your ideas, share your knowledge, and don’t be afraid to make mistakes—it’s through those mistakes that we learn and grow. Don’t be afraid to take calculated risks, since the higher risks yield better results.”

DLA Troop Support Commander Army General Landis Maddox thanked the panel for their participation and awarded coins to each panelist.

“On the behalf of command, I would say thank you...job well done! I appreciate those words of wisdom and inspiration that crossover.”

The culmination of the event was the award ceremony honoring DLA Troop Support employees.

“Today, we’ll honor some of our colleagues for leading the way for others to follow as exemplary models of public service and government leadership,” Maddox said.

The 2024 Women’s History Month awardees were:

**2024 Women’s History Month Award Winners:**

**PACER**

Kelly Fidik, Subsistence

**Non-Supervisory Female Employee Grades 09 and Below**

Army MSG Jacqueline Sanders, Clothing and Textiles

**Supervisory Female Employee Grades 11 and Above**

Mary Anne Danese, Organizational Alignment

**Supervisor/Manager of the Year**

Wanda Kinsey, Subsistence
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Omar C., Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 872]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zayas, J.), rendered May 25, 2016, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

*550Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]). Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Balkin, J.P., Miller, Duffy, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
#### Ramapo Realty, LLC, Respondent, v 1236 Rogers Avenue, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[48 NYS3d 503]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 1236 Rogers Avenue, LLC, and Rahim Siunykalimi appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated January 21, 2015, which, upon an order of the same court dated December 12, 2014, made after a hearing, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $267,707.76.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against, among others, 1236 Rogers Avenue, LLC, and Rahim *739Siunykalimi (hereinafter together the defendants). The plaintiff subsequently obtained a judgment of foreclosure upon the defendants’ default in answering the complaint. An auction sale was held in August 2010, at which the plaintiff announced an “upset price” that was higher than the amount set forth in the judgment of foreclosure. The plaintiff placed a nominal bid, and, as the sole bidder, took title to the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to confirm in part the referee’s report of sale and for leave to enter a deficiency judgment, and the defendant cross-moved to reject in part the referee’s report of sale. After an evidentiary hearing with respect to the market value of the property, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff leave to enter a deficiency judgment in its favor and against the defendants in the principal sum of $267,707.76. The plaintiff entered a judgment, and the defendants appeal.

RPAPL 1371 (2) states that a deficiency shall be “equal to the sum of the amount owing by the party liable as determined by the judgment with interest, plus the amount owing on all prior liens and encumbrances with interest, plus costs and disbursements of the action including the referee’s fee and disbursements, less the market value as determined by the court or the sale price of the property!,] whichever shall be the higher.” Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the court is not obligated to utilize an announced upset price as the market value of the property for purposes of determining the amount of any deficiency. Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conducting an evidentiary hearing with regard to the market value of the property, and thereafter properly utilized the market value when calculating the deficiency. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the judgment appealed from.

Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0287 CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. ALLAN GOODMAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 30 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 23 2020

09/23/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0287
# DLA Energy leaders address workforce, telework

/ Published Oct. 12, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
An upcoming adjustment to the Defense Logistics Agency’s telework posture was the main discussion topic during the DLA Energy All Hands in the McNamara Headquarters Complex auditorium on Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Oct. 10.

Around 330 employees joined in person and 450 joined online to listen to DLA Energy Commander Navy Capt. Brian Anderson and Deputy Commander Dave Kless address the workforce.

After recognizing recent employee accomplishments and reviewing fiscal year 2023 highlights, the leaders spent nearly an hour talking through employee concerns and questions about recently announced changes to telework. The policy requires telework-eligible employees to be at their assigned worksite at least 60% of their approved work schedule and marks Mondays and Fridays as the only approved regular and recurring telework days. The policy is effective starting Nov. 5 for supervisors and Jan. 2 for non-supervisory employees.

“We need to innovate, to change, to modernize, to come together, to have cohesive ideas that move us and posture us for strategic events in the next five years,” Anderson said. “It's about bringing people back together. That's the purpose.”

According to DLA Vice Director Brad Bunn, the adjustments set the conditions to help meet future challenges at a pivotal point in the nation’s history.

“In a virtual world where we are predominantly separate and dispersed, the conditions aren’t right to create that collaborative environment or for teams to work together across cross-functional and organizational lines to bring about those solutions,” Bunn said.

Both Anderson and Kless acknowledged employees may have concerns adjusting to the new policy.

“It is not lost on leadership in DLA Energy that this is a highly emotional thing for employees,” Kless said. “We understand that.”

Anderson listed concerns like the potential for insufficient desk space, parking challenges, and traffic.

“There are three months between now and implementation to work through these,” he said. “We can do one of two things. We can, in an emotional state, spend the next three months using that time to raise those concerns, raise our complaints, or we can spend the next three months trying to figure out how we shape the outcome to affect the least number of people the least.”

Anderson said there are still some flexibilities available.

“We have the ability to grant situational telework until we are ready, until we have a place to put everybody in this family into a cubicle, into an office, into a chair, into a desk, with the right IT to do their job,” he said.

Moving forward, Anderson and Kless directed a cross-sectional team of DLA Energy employees who will work with DLA Human Resources and Installation Management to address concerns and work towards implementation.
#### Stern Family Limited Partnership, Respondent, v A.T.I. Model Products, Inc., Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 838]

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid rent, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered October 22, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon a finding that the plaintiff was entitled to keep a security deposit in the sum of $17,735, awarded the plaintiff the additional principal sum of $12,036.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a recalculation of damages consistent herewith and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

On November 1, 1988, the plaintiff’s predecessor, Joseph Stern, as landlord, entered into a lease with the defendant, as tenant, of certain commercial real property. The lease commenced on November 1, 1988, and expired on April 14, 1995. Pursuant to the lease, the defendant deposited the sum of $17,735 with the plaintiffs predecessor as a security deposit. The lease further provided that the defendant was required to pay real estate taxes as “additional rental.”

On or before April 1, 1994, the defendant vacated the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover unpaid rent and other charges in the amount of $58,164.55. The defendant counterclaimed alleging, inter alia, that it was entitled to certain credits and to the return of the security deposit.

Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court, inter alia, determined that the plaintiff was entitled to keep the entire se*436curity deposit of $17,735. Further, upon applying certain credits in favor of the defendant, the court awarded the plaintiff the additional sum of $12,036.

The Supreme Court erred in its calculation of the real estate taxes owed by the defendant for the period of time from December 1993 to November 1994. In determining the amount due for such taxes, the court should have utilized the actual taxes owed, as reflected in the certified records of the Suffolk County Treasurer, which were placed into evidence by the defendant.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have applied the security deposit to offset the actual damages owed by the defendant. Thus, the damages awarded against the defendant should be reduced by the amount of the security deposit, and any balance thereof should be returned to the defendant *(see Prudential Westchester Corp. v Tomasino,*5 AD2d 489, 493 [1958], *affd*6 NY2d 824 [1959]).

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for recalculation of damages as indicated herein, and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment. McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32651-32652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-570-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 9, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 27, 1998, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company 
(Eastern Shore), Post Office Box 1769, Dover, Delaware 19903-1769, 
filed a request with the Commission in Docket No. CP98-570-000, 
pursuant to Sections 157-205, and 157.212 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to add 
one new delivery point for Delaware Division of Chesapeake Utilities 
Corporation (Delaware Division), an existing customer authorized in 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-40-000, all as more fully 
set forth in the request on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Eastern Shore proposes to construct and operate one delivery point 
and associated facilities near Greenspring Road (County Road 47) in 
Smyrna, New Castle County, Delaware to serve Delaware Division.
    Eastern Shore states that the delivery of gas through the new tap 
would be within the customer's existing entitlement, that there would 
be no adverse impact on Eastern Shore's other customers' peak and 
annual deliveries, and that no additional facilities would be required 
to serve the new delivery point other than a meter and regulating 
station and service lateral. The estimated cost of the proposed new 
delivery point would be $75,000.00 which would be paid for by Delaware 
Division.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an

[[Page 32652]]

application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15790 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Priester, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 260]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.), rendered on or about March 5, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

*547Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Ilinka Pavic, Appellant, v Slobodan Djokic, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 908]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joan S. Posner, J.), dated May 19, 2016. The order, without a hearing, *697dismissed the mother’s petitions to modify an order of custody and visitation and to vacate an order of protection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While public policy generally mandates free access to the courts *(see Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8*AD3d 487, 489 [2004]; *Sassower v Signorelli,*99 AD2d 358, 359 [1984]), a party may forfeit that right if she or he abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will *(see Matter of Scott v Powell,*146 AD3d 964, 966 [2017]; *Matter of Molinari v Tuthill,*59 AD3d 722 [2009]; *Matter of Pignataro v Davis,*8 AD3d at 489). Here, the mother failed to comply with the Family Court’s order dated June 15, 2015, requiring her to obtain leave from the court or representation by counsel before filing new petitions to modify the existing order of custody and visitation or the existing order of protection. Therefore, the court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the mother’s petitions *(see Matter of Scott v Powell,*146 AD3d at 966).

The mother’s remaining contentions are either academic or without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
2017-0745.

#### Frett v. Marques.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3006228-OCT-201010:31 AM
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. 96-10126

Summary Calendar

 

DAVID CHASE BOYD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:95-CV-30

- - - - - - - - - -

July 18, 1996

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Chase Boyd, Texas state prisoner #588655, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

habeas relief. Boyd contends that the district court erroneously

accorded the state court’s findings of fact a presumption of

correctness and improperly denied him an evidentiary hearing. 

We have reviewed the record and Boyd’s brief and AFFIRM the

judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated
No. 96-10126

- 2 -

by the district court. Boyd v. Scott, No. 7:95-CV-30-X (N.D.

Tex. Jan. 24, 1996).

AFFIRMED.