alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USEC Inc.; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| December 11, 2012 | /s/ John C. Barpoulis                                           |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              | John C. Barpoulis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|              | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
No. 10-6952.

#### Waldo Fenner, Petitioner v. Bill Bell, et al.

562 U.S. 1142, 131 S. Ct. 910,

178 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 451.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 362.
---

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF EDWARD M. MANDEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) / 15(d)-14(a) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Edward M. Mandel, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of NeXplore Corporation;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

March 10, 2008

| | /s/    EDWARD M. MANDEL
| | -----------------------
| | Edward M. Mandel       
| | Chief Executive Officer
800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

October 7, 2014 

Mr. Robert Cavalier 

15973 SW Westminster Dr. 

Tigard, OR 97224-1397 

Dear Mr. Cavalier: 

This is in response to your letter dated August 1, 2014, posted to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2014-0611) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to amend part § 91.1045 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In 

your petition, you request a new regulation/rule to require all small, private airplanes to 

install and periodically test a loud emergency warning blast audible by people on the ground 

in the direct flight path of the airplane. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when making a 

decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for 

rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues. 

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the 

safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers the 

most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines 

found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue 

rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the proposed rule 

change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we 

consider future rulemaking. 

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find out 

and track it through one of the two following websites: 
2

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-onsignificant-rulemakings). 

 For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semiannual regulatory agenda, through the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified 

Agenda website (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Lirio Liu 

Director, Office of Rulemaking
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUKHDEV SINGH PANDHER, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72800 

Agency No. A079-806-294 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Sukhdev Singh Pandher, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his reopened application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72800 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings, including its credibility findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 

257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we review de novo claims of due process 

violations, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the 

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s pre-REAL ID Act adverse 

credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Pandher’s testimony 

and his wife’s affidavits as to his son’s whereabouts, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 

959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[s]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported 

by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [an applicant’s] claim of 

persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ's adverse credibility finding” (citation 

omitted)), and implausibilities in Pandher’s testimony as to when and how he 

learned of his son’s detention and beating, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 

(9th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility determination, based in part on implausibility 

finding, supported by substantial evidence). In the absence of credible testimony,

in this case, Pandher’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah 

v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pandher’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the 
3 16-72800 

agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that 

it is more likely than not Pandher would be tortured if returned to India. See 

Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, we reject Pandher’s contentions that the IJ violated his due process 

rights by failing to consider affidavits. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We 

also reject Pandher’s contention that the IJ failed to consider other record evidence.

See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 10-7000.

#### Loanita Adams, Petitioner v. City of Federal Way, Washington, et al.

562 U.S. 1143, 131 S. Ct. 913,

178 L. Ed. 2d 763,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 197,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.A****CERTIFICATION**I, James J. Cleary, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of El Paso Natural Gas Company;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 ofthe circumstances 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 informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this 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 fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 3, 2006         */s/ James J. Cleary*   James J. Cleary   Chairman of the Board and President
SCPW-19-0000801

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

SHERYLE FERREIRA, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE BRUCE A. LARSON, Judge of the Family Court of the

Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

K.V. (2009) and S.V. (2013); DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE

OF HAWAI#I; MARLEEN VICTORINO; ZACHARY KAILI-JOSUE; AARON CHUNG,

in his capacity as Guardian ad Litem, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(FC-S NO. 18-0017)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Sheryle Ferreira’s

motion for reconsideration, filed on March 9, 2020, and the

record, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 18, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-19-0000801

18-MAR-2020

01:44 PM
No. 10-676.

#### Stephen L. Hawks, Petitioner v. Jim Mattox, et al.

562 U.S. 1201, 131 S. Ct. 1046,

178 L. Ed. 2d 865,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 966.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 878.
June 25, 2015

Acting Flight Manager, Flight Standards Service Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Services Re: Request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small unmann ed aerial system on land controlled by clients of mine and their clients to assist in the safe evaluation and documentation of infrastructure and operations for my future clients. I Malcolm Edward Durden, Jr. respectfully request an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 of the Code of federal Regulations to permit the use of small unmanned aerial systems to assist in the evaluation and documentation of infrastructure of operations for my clients. Also, filming/photos of various functions for my cli ents in the field of Real Estate, Construction, Development, as well as outdoor weddings, parties, and special events. Accordingly, the grant of exemption is consistent with congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, that safe systems and operators be permitted in National Airspace prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use of these systems for commercial purposes. Specifically, the UAV utilized is a DJI Phantom 3 Professional(P3P) has been approved by your agency for the exact purposes of this request. The P3P features: Auto

- Take Off

- System takes off and hovers until directed by its own firmware. Auto

- Return Home

- GPS remembers take off location and will return “ home” t o land through firmware commands. Fail Safe

- If battery is low or P3P loses connection with controller for any reason, the aircraft will automatically return to take off point and land safely. Automatic Flight Logs

- All logs and details of every flight including complete route, flight time, distance, location, photos and video taken are automatically captured and easily shared. The aircrafts specs are provided on a separate attachment provided. The benefits of this exemption will allow for a job to be created as well as meet a demand/need that currently is not being met in this area and offering the community a service, tax revenue it lacks, while adherring to the FAA and Department of Transportations guide lines for commercial use of UAV. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this request. I look forward to your response and approval to move forward. Sincerely and respectfully, Malcolm Edward Durden, Jr. 95 Lagrange Street Newnan, Ga. 30263 404

- 626

- 7247medjr_mailbox@yahoo.com
Exhibit 23.1

              Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Consent



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Escalade, Incorporated on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-16279, 333-52475 and 333-52477)
of our reports dated March 13, 2007, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of the Company as of December 30,
2006 and December 31, 2005, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 30, 2006, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 13,
2007, on our audit of the internal control over financial reporting of the
Company as of December 30, 2006, which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.


/s/ BKD, LLP
---------------------
BKD, LLP
Evansville, Indiana
March 13, 2007

                                       62
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         139,868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               58,583,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (380,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         420,038
<DEPRECIATION>                                 303,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,832,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,623,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,209,114
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,832,202
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,096,577
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,657,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,433,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,005,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,695
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            986,564
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   986,564
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .565
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .565


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1
   Parent Level:
    
    Dex One Corporation (f/k/a R.H. Donnelley Corporation, f/k/a Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation), a Delaware corporation; traded on the New York Stock Exchange as DEXO
 Tier 1 Subsidiaries:
    
    R.H. Donnelley Inc.(formerly known as The Reuben H. Donnelley
Corporation), a Delaware corporation wholly owned by Dex One Corporation. R.H.
Donnelley Inc. is registered to do business as Dex.Dex Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation wholly owned by Dex One
Corporation. (Formerly known as Forward Acquisition Corp., formed
September 30, 2005 and established to merge with and survive Dex
Media, Inc. on January 31, 2006, the public holding company
formerly traded on NYSE as Dex). Dex Media, Inc. is registered
to do business as Dex.Business.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation wholly owned by Dex One
CorporationDex One Service, Inc., a Delaware corporation wholly owned by Dex
One CorporationR.H. Donnelley Corporation, a Delaware corporation wholly owned by
Dex One Corporation
  R.H. Donnelley APIL, Inc.
  Dex Media East, Inc.  Dex Media West, Inc.
  Dex Media Service LLC
No. 10-777.

#### Romala Stone, Inc., Petitioner v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

562 U.S. 1201, 131 S. Ct. 1055,

178 L. Ed. 2d 867,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1022.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 875.
EXHIBIT (12)

Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Year ended December 31,2009

2008

2007

2006

2005Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges (Note A)

$
114,457,760

$
108,185,260

$
91,690,922

$
99,409,515

$
65,781,250Fixed Charges:Interest on long-term debt

$
42,084,023

$
36,040,957

$
31,120,122

$
25,947,191

$
24,059,165Interest on short-term debt


1,124,883


1,853,682


2,940,317


2,275,939


195,197Interest on note payable to securitization trust


4,250,000


4,250,000


4,250,000


4,250,000


4,250,000Other interest


(680,863
)

1,152,588


1,069,206


1,029,135


605,492Rental expense representative of an interest factor (Note B)


6,501,484


6,040,062


4,686,748


4,798,490


659,844Total fixed charges

$
53,279,527

$
49,337,289

$
44,066,393

$
38,300,755

$
29,769,698Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


2.15


2.19


2.08


2.60


2.21


NOTE A:    For
the purpose of determining earnings in the calculation of the ratio, net income has been increased by the provision for income taxes, non-operating income
taxes, minority interest and by the sum of fixed charges as shown above.

NOTE B:    One-third
of rental expense (which approximates the interest factor).

---



QuickLinks