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

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Keith Conrad, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust;

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

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.The 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 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 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 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 issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

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

|                     |     |                                                                    
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:
April 19, 2007 | By: | /s/ Keith Conrad
Keith Conrad
President and Chief Executive Officer
WORKBOX, LLC v. KENWORTH OF SOUTH LOUISIANA, LLC

No. 2019-C-132

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF WEST BATON ROUGE**

PER CURIAM

**Writ granted.** The court of appeal erred in substituting its findings for that of the trial court in the absence of manifest error. *Arceneaux v. Domingue* , 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La. 1978). The trial court's reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact are supported by the evidence. *Id* . Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeal is vacated. The judgment of the trial court is reinstated *283and amended to reduce the award of damages from $ 49,453.33 to $ 33,510.74.

WEIMER, J., would deny.
1556.

#### Oliver Company *v.*Smith.

Attachment, from city court of Statesboro — Judge Branueu. October 15, 1908.

Submitted January 28, —

Decided June 15, 1909.

*Brannen & Booth,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. B. Strange,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. 'Rulings occurring upon a trial can not be complained of in a bill of eiceptions filed more than thirty days after the expiration of the term at which the trial was had, unless exceptions pendente lite have been duly preserved.

2. There was no error in overruling’the motion for a new trial based on the general grounds alone, since the evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize the verdict. ■ *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2021278EN.01002001.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2021 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

(Case C-122/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the voluntary additional pension scheme - Concept of ‘individual decision taken with regard to a Member of the Parliament’ - Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the Parliament - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time limit for bringing proceedings)

(2021/C 278/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and Z. Nagy, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 786 

Congratulating the University of Tennessee, Knoxville as the College World 

Series winner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself and Mr. HAGERTY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the University of Tennessee, Knoxville as the 

College World Series winner. 

Whereas the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (referred to 

in this preamble as the ‘‘University of Tennessee’’) is located in the second congressional district of Tennessee; 

Whereas the University of Tennessee Volunteers baseball 

team finished the 2024 season with a record number of 

wins and earned the distinction of national champions for 

the first time in program history; 

Whereas the University of Tennessee Volunteers baseball 

team won the Southeastern Conference regular season 

and tournament titles; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 786 ATS 

Whereas the 2024 University of Tennessee Volunteers baseball team is the first Southeastern Conference baseball 

team in history to win 60 games; 

Whereas the University of Tennessee Volunteers baseball 

team set a record with 5 players recording 20 or more 

home runs during the 2024 season; 

Whereas the University of Tennessee Volunteers defeated 

Texas A&M University by a score of 6 to 5 on Monday, 

June 25, to win the 2024 College World Series; 

Whereas this victory is a testament to the dedication of the 

players, coaches, staff, and fans of the University of Tennessee Volunteers baseball program; and 

Whereas this remarkable team has made the entire State of 

Tennessee deeply proud: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates and honors the University of 

3 Tennessee, Knoxville Volunteers baseball program 

4 for its incredible win in the 2024 College World Se5 ries and for winning the first baseball national title 

6 in program history; 

7 (2) recognizes the achievements, teamwork, and 

8 Volunteer spirit of the coaches, players, and staff of 

9 the University of Tennessee baseball team; 

10 (3) commends the fans and the entire State of 

11 Tennessee for their dedication and support; and 

12 (4) respectfully requests that the Secretary of 

13 the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolu14 tion to— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 786 ATS 

1 (A) the Head Coach of the University of 

2 Tennessee, Knoxville baseball team, Tony Vi3 tello; 

4 (B) the Chancellor of the University of 

5 Tennessee, Knoxville, Donde Plowman; and 

6 (C) the Director of Athletics of the Univer7 sity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Danny White. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the CITY PENSION FUND for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Pembroke Pines and The City of Pembroke Pines, Appellants, v. Kenneth FRITZ, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1794

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Bassam MINAWI, Appellant, v. G. Andrew GRACY, as personal representative of the Estate of Anwar Minawi, deceased, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4255

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Roger Marx DESENBERG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5129

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Ken La Honta, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, 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 misleadingwith 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 thisreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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 underour 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 beingprepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 suchevaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any changein 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, oris 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 ofthe registrant’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 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: November 15, 2005
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 711 

Designating May 2024 as ‘‘American Stroke Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating May 2024 as ‘‘American Stroke Month’’. 

Whereas quick identification and treatment for stroke results 

in a higher chance of survival and reduces recovery time 

for individuals experiencing a stroke; 

Whereas treatment depends on the type of stroke someone is 

having, which must be diagnosed by a healthcare professional; 

Whereas, when dealing with a time-sensitive medical emergency like a stroke, the right care, at the right time, at 

the right facility, is of the utmost importance; 

Whereas a system of care allows for scientifically proven 

measures to be applied to every patient, every time; 

Whereas, every 40 seconds, someone in the United States has 

a stroke; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 711 IS 

Whereas stroke is a leading cause of serious long-term disability and the fifth-leading cause of death in the United 

States, causing more than 160,000 deaths each year; 

Whereas nearly 1⁄2 of adults in the United States have high 

blood pressure, which is a leading cause and controllable 

risk factor for stroke; 

Whereas the ‘‘F.A.S.T.’’ warning signs and symptoms of 

stroke include face drooping, arm weakness, speech difficulty, and time to call 911; 

Whereas, during American Stroke Month in May, and yearround, the ‘‘Together to End Stroke’’ initiative of the 

American Stroke Association strives to teach people everywhere that stroke is largely preventable, treatable, and 

beatable; and 

Whereas more research and education is needed to help prevent and treat stroke: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates May 2024 as ‘‘American Stroke 

3 Month’’; 

4 (2) recognizes and reaffirms the commitment of 

5 the Government and people of the United States to 

6 fighting stroke— 

7 (A) by promoting awareness about the 

8 causes, risks, and prevention of stroke; 

9 (B) by supporting research on stroke; and 

10 (C) by improving access to affordable, 

11 quality care to reduce long-term disability and 

12 mortality; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 711 IS 

1 (3) commends the efforts of States, territories, 

2 and possessions of the United States, localities, non3 profit organizations, businesses and other entities, 

4 and the people of the United States who support 

5 American Stroke Month; and 

6 (4) encourages all individuals in the United 

7 States to familiarize themselves with the risk factors 

8 associated with stroke, recognize the warning signs 

9 and symptoms, and on first sign of a stroke, dial 

10 911 immediately in order to begin to reduce the dev11 astating effects of stroke on the population of the 

12 United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell GEORGE

No. 2018-KH-0667

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations *757period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 24 - 0048 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JONATHAN DOUGLAS SHAW,

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 April 29 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

March 19 2024

03/19/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0048
Reggie R. GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
escu_ex1012.htm

EXHIBIT 10.12
 
I, Saeed Quraeshi, hereby irrevocably waive any right to compensation as a Director of Escue Energy, Inc. for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016.
 
 
	Dated: August 17, 2016	By:	/s/ Saeed Quraeshi	
	
	
	Saeed Quraeshi
This project was conducted by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (www.lrc.rpi.edu) under FAA contract FAA/05‐C‐AT‐

RPI.  This summary was prepared by the Lighting Research Center on behalf of the FAA.

Further details: Don Gallagher, donald.gallagher@faa.gov;  http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/aviation.asp.

The study findings led to new chromaticity

recommendations for LED aviation lighting colors,

which were adopted into Engineering Brief 67,

Light Sources Other Than Incandescent and

Xenon for Airport and Obstruction Lighting.

Federal Aviation Administration 

Research Highlights 

Study Goals

Pilots must correctly

identify the colors of

airfield lights to safely

land and navigate

planes on an airport

runway. Chromaticity

requirements for airfield lighting were based on

incandescent technology, often used with colored filters.

When dimmed to lower intensity steps, such as during

clear nighttime conditions, incandescent shifts to a

yellowish appearance that can make color identification

difficult for pilots with color‐vision deficiencies and with

normal color vision. LEDs overcome some of the

shortcomings of incandescent: they can produce all

aviation colors without needing filters, and they donʹt

shift in color appearance when dimmed. The goal of this

study was to identify chromaticity regions that

maximize correct color identification for light sources

not limited by these shortcomings.

Research Activities

The first study

focused on

requirements for

white lights;

incandescent white

aviation lights have

often been called

yellow. Study

participants viewed

light sources with a

wide range of chromaticities in order to determine the

chromaticity region resulting in high percentage (>80%)

of identification as white. A revised chromaticity

boundary for white LEDs permits lights that are “bluer”

than incandescent lamp color, but avoids confusion with

blue lights.

The second study included observers with color‐normal

and color‐deficient vision and tested all aviation signal

light colors (white, yellow, red, green and blue). LEDs

improved correct identification of white and green

signal lights for both color‐normal and color‐deficient

groups; white because of the ʺbluerʺ appearance

compared to incandescent, and green because of a more

saturated color (green incandescent lights, desaturated

in appearance, were often called “white” regardless of

color‐vision status).

For More Information

 http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/DesktopModules/FlexNews/Dow

nloadHandler.ashx?id=b8145d4d‐1b09‐4574‐9f11‐

3c0e18aefee1&f=TC‐TN12‐61.pdf  

 https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media

/EB‐67d.pdf  

Chromaticity Boundaries 

for LED Signal Lights

Newly recommended chromaticity boundaries resulting

from the LRC studies

One of the configurations observed in

the white identification study
Mary QUEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-129

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - products_maps(1)

## By Location

              - (-)alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - new york(1)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - virginia(1)

## By Year

map        January 1, 1976        Preliminary residual magnetic map of the eastern Bering Shelf and parts of western Alaska
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARIO SIMUEL, a/k/a Jamie, a/k/a Darryl Brown,

a/k/a Blue,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.

(CR-03-483-BEL)

Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 15, 2006

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Paul Henninger, Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mario Simuel appeals his conviction and sentence

following a guilty plea to armed bank robbery, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113 (2000). Simuel alleges that the district court erred

in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

A defendant who seeks to withdraw his guilty plea before

sentencing must demonstrate a “fair and just reason” for withdrawal

of the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). A “fair and just”

reason is one that essentially “challenges the fairness of the Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding” or “challenges the fulfillment of a

promise or condition emanating from the proceeding.” United

States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). A court

should closely scrutinize the Rule 11 colloquy and attach a strong

presumption that the plea is final and binding if the Rule 11

proceeding is adequate. Id. We review the district court’s denial

of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). After

reviewing the record, we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion by finding no fair and just reason for the

withdrawal of Simuel’s guilty plea. 

Accordingly, we affirm Simuel’s conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED