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

                                   EXHIBIT 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Charles E. Phillips, President and Chief Financial Officer of Eye
Dynamics, Inc., certifies that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eye
Dynamics, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 this period in which the quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

                  a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 17, 2004

/s/ Charles E. Phillips
---------------------------
Charles E. Phillips
President and Chief Financial Officer
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

37542

Vol. 61, No. 139

Thursday, July 18, 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[AD–FRL–5512–9]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revision of

Initial List of Categories of Sources

and Schedule for Standards Under

Sections 112(c) and (e) of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990

Correction

In notice document 96–13824

beginning on page 28197 in the issue of

Tuesday, June 4, 1996, make the

following corrections:

1. On pages 28203-28208, in Table 1,

in the last column, the parenthetical

codes ‘‘(C)’’, ‘‘(A)’’, ‘‘(S)’’, ‘‘(P)’’ and

‘‘(R)’’ should have appeared on the same

line as the Federal Register cite

preceding it.

2. On page 28204, in the first column,

under Agricultural chemicals

production, after the second entry insert

‘‘4, 6-Dinitro-o-Cresol Production 11/15/

97’’; and remove the footnote references

after ‘‘Chloroneb Production’’ and

‘‘Sodium Pentachlorophenate

Production’’.

3. On the same page, in the same

column, under Food and agriculture

processes, in the second entry, ‘‘Casing’’

was misspelled.

4. On page 28205, in the first column,

in the sixth entry, the footnote

references should read ‘‘d, g’’.

5. On the same page, in the 2d

column, in the 15th line from the

bottom, ‘‘3080’’ should read ‘‘30801’’.

6. On page 28206, in the first column,

insert a colon after ‘‘Production of

organic chemicals’’ and ‘‘Miscellaneous

processes’’.

7. On page 28208, in the footnotes, the

second ‘‘(A)’’ should read ‘‘(a)’’.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 41485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-50801]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-38830; File No. SR-PCX-97-26]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the Pacific Exchange, Inc. 
Relating to the Member Surcharge in Arbitration Proceedings

Correction

    In notice document 97-18764 beginning on page 38335 in the issue of 
Thursday, July 17, 1997, make the following correction:
    On page 38335, the subject heading should be as set forth above.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 004 7 6 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ WALKER DON R ELL WILKERSON , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 3 77 th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Walker Donr ell Wilkerson , attempts to appeal the trial court ’ s o rder denying mo t i on to decrease bail signed on September 23, 2015

. On October 2, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested correction of this defect2

within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Counsel responded stating tha t Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.1 provides for appeals in bail cases and the order is appealable. Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of convict ion

. See Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Shumake , 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.

— Austin 1997, no pet.). There are a few limited exceptions to this general rule, see Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, no pet.). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for pretrial bail reduction. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31 provides procedures for appeals in habeas corpus and bail proceedings and has been used by appellate courts in the past to find jurisdiction over interlocutory order s for the denial of a motion to red uce bail. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 31. In Ragston , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals made it clear that Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 31 does not grant a right of interlocutory appeal because “[a] rule of appellate procedure cannot, by itself, grant the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail, because the Court’s rules cannot enlarge the rights of litigants beyond those provided in the constitutions or a statute.” Ragston , 424 S.W.3d at 52. The Court is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein.3

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 5th day of November, 2015

.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Relations between winter precipitation and atmospheric circulation simulated by the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory general circulation model      

      January 1, 1995    

General circulation model (GCM) simulations of atmospheric circulation are more reliable than GCM simulations of temperature and precipitation. In this study, temporal correlations between 700 hPa height anomalies simulated winter precipitation at eight locations in the conterminous United States are compared with corresponding correlations in observations. The objectives are to 1) characterize the relations between atmospheric circulation and winter precipitation simulated by the GFDL, GCM for selected locations in the conterminous USA, ii) determine whether these relations are similar to those found in observations of the actual climate system, and iii) determine if GFDL-simulated precipitation is forced by the same circulation patterns as in the real atmosphere. -from Authors

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Contacts
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Using diets to reveal overlap and egg predation among benthivorous fishes in Lake Michigan      

      May 15, 2013    

Ecological stability in the Laurentian Great Lakes has been altered by nonindigenous species, such as the Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus and dreissenid mussels, and by declines in native amphipods Diporeia spp. We evaluated whether these changes could influence diet overlap between three benthivorous fishes (Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus, Deepwater Sculpin Myoxocephalus thompsonii, and Round Goby) and whether predation on eggs of native species was occurring. We examined diets of fish collected at depths of 69–128 m in Lake Michigan offshore of Frankfort and Muskegon, Michigan, and Two Rivers and Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, during January–May 2009 and 2010. Important prey (by dry weight proportion and by percent frequency of occurrence) for Slimy Sculpin were Mysis (0.34; 45%), Diporeia (0.16; 34%), and Limnocalanus macrurus (0.22; 68%); important prey for Deepwater Sculpin were Mysis (0.74; 92%) and Diporeia (0.16; 54%). Round Goby consumed mainly bivalves (i.e., dreissenids: 0.68; 95%) and Mysis (0.15; 37%). The two sculpin species consumed the eggs of Bloaters Coregonus hoyi (Slimy Sculpin: 0.04, 11%; Deepwater Sculpin: 0.02, 7%) and the eggs of Deepwater Sculpin (Slimy Sculpin: 0.03, 13%; Deepwater Sculpin: 0.05, 16%) during February–May at all sites. Round Goby also consumed eggs of these species but at lower levels (≤0.01; <1%). Diet overlap was identified between sculpin species at Frankfort and Sturgeon Bay, suggesting possible interspecific competition, but their diets did not overlap at Two Rivers; diet overlap was never observed between Round Goby and either sculpin species. Given that (1) diet overlap varied by site and (2) diet proportions varied spatially more than temporally, benthivores appear to be exhibiting localized responses to recent ecological changes. Overall, these results reveal that egg predation and interspecific competition could be important interactions to consider in future examinations of the population dynamics of these species or in ecosystem models that forecast how fisheries will respond to possible perturbations or management scenarios.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Great Lakes Science Center          

1451 Green RoadAnn Arbor, MI48105United States

734-994-3331

734-994-8780

### Explore Search

                  - Biology
                  - Ecosystems
                  - United States
                  - Lake Michigan
                  - Michigan

View All **
Exhibit
32.1



Certification
of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Acology, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Acology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned Curtis Fairbrother, Chief Executive Officer of Acology, Inc., certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:
January 5, 2018

/s/
Curtis Fairbrother

Curtis
Fairbrother

Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
IN the INTEREST OF S.E., a child.

J.W., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-5088

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, Second District, Fort Myers, and Marisa L. Gonzalez, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Mary Soorus, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Appellate Counsel, Sanford; and J. Logan Murphy of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

J.W., the father, appeals from the circuit court's amended order terminating protective services and jurisdiction, reunifying the child with the mother, and denying a motion for rehearing. He raises two issues on appeal. The Department of Children and Families (the Department) concedes error as to both issues, and the Guardian ad Litem Program (GALP) concedes error as to the first issue. We accept the Department's and the GALP's concessions of error to the extent they acknowledge that the circuit court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.521(7), Florida Statutes (2017). We therefore reverse and remand the portion of the order that terminates the Department's supervision and the circuit court's jurisdiction.

Furthermore, in ordering reunification of the mother with the child, the circuit court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.522.1 Thus, we also reverse the portion of the order granting *765reunification. We remind the circuit court that on remand it must comply with all the requirements of chapter 39.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

KELLY, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

1

We note that the circuit court sua sponte ordered reunification of the mother with the child and that the issue of reunification was not before it at the time it did so. Because none of the parties have raised the issue of whether this was appropriate, we need not make that determination.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.106






March 7, 2017


To the Lenders parties to the
Credit Agreement referred
to below
Re:    Request for Extension of Termination Date
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to that certain Third Amended and Restated Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of April 16, 2015 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement", terms defined therein and not otherwise defined herein being used herein as defined therein), among DTE Electric Company (the "Company"), the Lenders (as defined in the Credit Agreement) parties thereto and Barclays Bank PLC, as Administrative Agent for the Lenders (the "Administrative Agent"), the Company hereby requests that, effective as of April 16, 2017, the Termination Date be extended for a period of one year from the Termination Date now in effect, as provided in Section 2.18 of the Credit Agreement.
You must give notice to the Administrative Agent whether or not you agree to the requested extension. Under Section 2.18(b) of the Credit Agreement, such notice generally must be received no later than 10 Business Days after the Administrative Agent receives this request.
The Company hereby certifies that the following statements are true on the date hereof, and will be true on the extension of the Termination Date:
(1)    no Default or Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing on the applicable Extension Date and immediately after giving effect thereto; and
(2)    the representations and warranties of the Borrower set forth in the Credit Agreement are true and correct on and as of the applicable Extension Date and after giving effect thereto, as though made on and as of such date (or to the extent that such representations and warranties specifically refer to an earlier date, as of such earlier date).
This notice and request is subject in all respects to the terms of the Credit Agreement, is irrevocable and shall be effective only if received by the Administrative Agent no later than March 7, 2017.
DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY




By /s/ David R. Murphy    
Title Assistant Treasurer    


1
#### Eugene C. Tenney, Petitioner, *v.*Neil C. Hamilton, Respondent.

Family Court, Erie County,

November 25, 1973.

*Richard B. Scott*for petitioner. *Samuel Giviletto*for respondent.

James B. Kane, J.

The respondent has been ordered to show cause why judgment pursuant to section 460 of the Family *1087Court Act should not be entered against him in the sum of $2,000, with interest from the 10th day of April, 1971, for costs and disbursements; and for other and further just and proper relief.

On March 10, 1971, upon termination of a habeas corpus referral from the Supreme Court, this court ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner herein the above sum as attorney’s fees. Said sum was to be paid *“*within thirty (30) days from [the above] date * * * or at such other time * * * as may be agreed upon ”.

The above order was not appealed. The petitioner herein, to date, has not agreed to a modification of the above sum.

The respondent has appeared herein with Samuel Civiletto, Esq. and has argued, in the alternative :

> 1. The above debt was listed in bankruptcy; notice was given to the petitioner; and the debt has been discharged.

> 2. In the event the above debt was not discharged, this court should modify the order regarding counsel fees herein.

The petitioner, appearing by Richard B. Scott, Esq. has argued that this is a nondischargeable debt and that no objection need be made to notice regarding a nondischargeable debt in bankruptcy proceedings.

For the purposes of this court, it is held herein that the above debt was nondischargeable under section 35 (subd. [a], par. [7]) of title 11 of the United States Code. It is further held that the petitioner’s failure to object to the respondent’s attempt to discharge said debt in bankruptcy did not deprive the petitioner of asserting his claim and pursuing his remedies herein.

It is the decision of the court that the petitioner herein is entitled to an order directing the entry of judgment for the sum of $2,000, together with $10 costs and *disbursements;*all pursuant to section 460 of the Family Court Act.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Treatment of anchor pixels in the METRIC model for improved estimation of sensible and latent heat fluxes      

      July 12, 2011    

Reliable estimation of sensible heat flux (H) is important in energy balance models for quantifying evapotranspiration (ET). This study was conducted to evaluate the value of adding the Priestley-Taylor (PT) equation to the METRIC (Mapping Evapotranspiration at high Resolution with Internalized Calibration) model. METRIC was used to estimate energy fluxes for 10 Landsat images from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 crop growing seasons in south-central Nebraska, USA, where each image owing to recent rainfall exhibited high residual moisture content even at the hot pixel. The METRIC model performed satisfactorily for net radiation (Rn ) and soil heat flux (G) estimation with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 52 and 24 W m-2, respectively. A RMSE of 122 W m-2 for H indicated the limitation of the METRIC model in estimating H for high residual moisture content of the hot pixel (Alfalfa reference ET fraction, ET r F > 0.15). The modified METRIC model (wet METRIC or wMETRIC) incorporating the PT equation was applied to calculate H at the anchor pixels (hot and cold) for high residual moisture content of the hot pixel. The α coefficient of the PT equation was locally calibrated using hourly meteorological data from an automatic weather station and Rn and G data from a Bowen ratio flux tower. The mean α coefficient value was 1.14. The wMETRIC model reduced the RMSE of H from 122 to 64 W m-2 and that of latent heat flux, LE, from 163 to 106 W m-2. The RMSE of daily ET decreased from 1.7 to 1.1 mm d-1 with wMETRIC. The results indicate that treatment of anchor pixels for high residual moisture content with the PT approach gives improved estimation of H, LE and daily ET. It is recommended that the wMETRIC model be used for estimating ET if the hot pixel has high residual moisture (i.e. reference ET fraction > 0.15).

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center          

47914 252nd StreetSioux Falls, SD57198United States

custserv@usgs.gov

800-252-4547

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - South Central Agricultural Laboratory
                  - Nebraska

View All **
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number FAA-2011 - 1094 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM070AD

757 - 57 - 0060 --- 1/9/03 757 - 57 - 0060, R1 --- 4/10/03 757 - 57 - 0060, R2 --- 5/24/07 757 - 57 - 0060, R3 --- 5/9/12 757 - 57 - 0061 --- 2/6/03 757 - 57 - 0061, R1 --- 5/24/07 757 - 57 - 0061, R2 --- 5/4/12 757 - 57 - 0060 IN 03 --- 10/30/08 757 - 57 - 0061 IN 02 --- 10/30/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008