alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(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
  (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 6, 2009
    /s/ Gail F. GoodmanGail F. GoodmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Juan Jasso RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71227.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.*

Filed Oct. 2, 2013.

Peter James Musser, Peter James Musser, A Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Tracey Mcdonald, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*764Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Jasso Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and to reinstate his voluntary departure order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Jasso Ramirez’s motion to reopen in order to reinstate voluntary departure, where the motion was filed after his removal order became final, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and Jasso Ramirez failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Avagyan,*646 F.3d at 679-80 (no diligence where petitioner “Apparently ... took no affirmative steps to investigate” whether prior counsel adequately prepared claim after having reason to suspect deficient performance).

In his opening brief, Jasso Ramirez failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the filing of an untimely petition for review. *See Rizk v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
#### BRADLEY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by William T. Bradley, as administrator, etc., against the" New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP01-407-000]

Take notice that on May 4, 2001, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be effective June 4, 2001:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 600

Original Sheet No. 718

Sheet Nos. 719-798

Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to amend its tariff, as suggested by the Commission in its April 12, 2001, Order Denying Clarification and Rehearing in Docket No. CP95-218-004, to include a generic waiver of the “shipper must have title” rule and a general statement that it will only transport for others on off-system capacity pursuant to its existing tariff and rates.

Algonquin states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11983 Filed 5-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2018072EN.01004101.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/41

---

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-834/17)

(2018/C 072/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service, Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: A. Ryan, solicitor, F. Hoseinian and W. Knibbeler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate UPS for the damages incurred, in the amount of EUR 1 742 billion and applicable interest;

| — | compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate UPS for the taxes that will be imposed on the damages obtained, on the basis of the tax rate applicable on the day of judgment; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation under Article 340 TFEU for the loss suffered as a consequence of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express (‘the Decision’) which was annulled by the General Court on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13.

In support of its application, the applicant claims that the Decision is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law that are intended to confer rights on UPS. According to the applicant, each breach individually underpinned the Decision and prevented the applicant from acquiring TNT and from materialising the benefits associated with that proposed transaction.

The applicant claims that these breaches are a serious breach of the law regarding (1) the price concentration analysis; (2) the efficiencies analysis; (3) the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness; and (4) the assessment of the closeness of competition made in the Decision.

According to the applicant, each of these breaches, individually or considered together, is responsible for the unlawful Decision and establishes the Union’s liability under Article 340 TFEU.

The applicant further claims that these breaches in turn caused the applicant’s loss because had they not taken place, UPS would have acquired TNT. Without any one of the erroneous price concentration analysis, the efficiencies analysis, the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness and the closeness of competition assessment, so the applicant claims, no ordinarily prudent and diligent administration would have prohibited the proposed Transaction.

According to the applicant, it should therefore be put in the position it would have been in had the unlawful Decision not been adopted by way of compensation under Article 340 TFEU.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


           CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of NS8 Corporation (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB/A for the  period  ending  December  31, 2005 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ricardo
Rosado, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  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 respect,  the financial condition and result of
                    operations of the Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Ricardo Rosado
------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
October 24, 2006
Exhibit 10.1
 FIRST AMENDMENT  TO  TURN KEY DATACENTER LEASE
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO TURN KEY DATACENTER LEASE Amendment 1A Effective Date DIGITAL ALFRED, LLC Landlord CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. Tenant
 W I T N E S S E T H:
 WHEREAS TKD Lease Premises Datacenter Building
 WHEREAS POP Rider Lease
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 Early Access
 Definitions
 Early Access
 -1-




---



##### 



Early Access Date April 1, 2011
 Early Access Notice
 Early Access Period
 Tenant Work
 License
 Confidentiality
 -2-




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
     [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
 -3-




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 LANDLORD
 
 By:
    Digital Realty Trust, L. P.,a Maryland limited partnership,its member and manager By:
    Digital Realty Trust, Inc.,a Maryland corporation,its general partner By:
    /s/ Richard BerkName:
    Richard BerkTitle:
    Vice President Portfolio Management, West Region Date:
    
    March 31, 2011
 TENANT
 
 By:
    /s/ John J. Walsh, Jr.Name:
    John J. Walsh, Jr.Title:
    Senior Vice President, Engineering and Operations Date:
    
    March 27, 2011
 -4-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems (1205).                    

*Date/Time:*                         June 1, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Ken P. Chong, Program Director, Mechanics and Structures of Materials, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 545, Arlington, VA, (703) 292-8360.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'01 Surface Engineering and Material Design Review Panel as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                     

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-12593 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLIED PREMIER INSURANCE, a Risk

Retention Group; a Connecticut corporation,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY

COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 55099

D.C. No.

5:18

- cv

- 00088

- JGB

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2021

Submission Withdrawn March 22, 2021

Resubmitted September 19, 2023

Pasadena, California

Before: O ’ SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

United Financial Casualty Co mpany appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to Allied Premier Insurance. Because the facts are known to the

parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

SEP 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

The only issue on appeal is whether California’s Motor Carriers of Property

Permit Act (“MCPPA”), Cal. Veh. Code §§ 34600 et seq. , continued the coverage

of United’s insurance policy with Porras after the policy otherwise ended by its own

terms. The district court relied on California precedent interpreting an earlier

version of the statute to determine that United’s policy continued through Porras’s

accident , and United was thus liable for equitable contribution to Allied

. The district

court also entered judgment for Allied on its equitable subrogation and declaratory

relief claims. Mindful of the statutory changes since earlier California precedents,

we certified this state law question to the California Supreme Court

. Allied Premier

Ins. v. United Fin. Cas. Co. , 991 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2021 ). Its answer decides this

appeal.

“The duration of the policy’s coverage is regulated by its terms and those of

any endorsement or amendment to the policy itself.” Allied Premier Ins. v. United

Fin. Cas. Co.

, 15 Cal. 5 th 20

, 39 (2023). United’s policy with Porras terminated

automatically when Porras did not renew the policy. The MCPPA did not extend its

duration. Id. at 34. (“[T]he Act does not prevent cancellation or termination of an

insurance policy under the terms of the contract.”)

.

United’s policy coverage terminated before Porras’s accident. Accordingly,

th e district court’s summary judgment on Allied’s claims for equitable

contribution, equitable subrogation, and declaratory relief must be reversed.3

REVERSED

.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28758-28759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1320-EL, WYW153411]


Coal Lease Exploration License, WY

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of invitation for coal exploration license.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 
as amended by section 4 of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 
1976, 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. 201 (b), and to the regulations adopted 
as 43 CFR 3410, all interested parties are hereby invited to 
participate with Ark Land Company on a pro rata cost sharing basis in 
its program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United 
States of America in the following-described lands in Campbell County, 
WY:


[[Page 28759]]


T. 43 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Wyoming
    Sec. 2: Lots 5-20;
    Sec. 11: Lots 1-16;
    Sec. 12: Lots 2 (NW\1/4\ & S\1/2\), 3-16;
    Sec. 13: Lots 1-16;
    Sec. 14: NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, Lots 1-15;
    Sec. 24: Lots 1-16;
    Sec. 25: Lots 1-16; T. 44 N., R. 71 W., 6th P.M., Wyoming
    Sec. 35: Lots 1-16.
    Containing 5,063.6875 acres, more or less.

    All of the coal in the above-described land consists of unleased 
Federal coal within the Powder River Basin Known Coal Leasing Area. The 
purpose of the exploration program is to obtain data on the Wyodak coal 
seam.

ADDRESSES: The proposed exploration program is fully described and will 
be conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the 
Bureau of Land Management. Copies of the exploration plan are available 
for review during normal business hours in the following offices 
(serialized under number WYW153411): Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming 
State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003; 
and, Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector 
Drive, Casper, WY 82604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of invitation will be published 
in The News-Record of Gillette, WY, once each week for two consecutive 
weeks beginning the week of May 28, 2001, and in the Federal Register. 
Any party electing to participate in this exploration program must send 
written notice to both the Bureau of Land Management and Ark Land 
Company no later than thirty days after publication of this invitation 
in the Federal Register. The written notice should be sent to the 
following addresses: Ark Land Company, Attn: Michael Lincoln, P.O. Box 
460, Hanna, WY 82327, and the Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State 
Office, Branch of Solid Minerals, Attn: Julie Weaver, P.O. Box 1828, 
Cheyenne, WY 82003.
    The foregoing is published in the Federal Register pursuant to 43 
CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1).

    Dated: May 14, 2001.
Phillip C. Perlewitz,
Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals.
[FR Doc. 01-13124 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-255-001]


Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 15, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 19, 2001, Cove Point LNG Limited 
Partnership (Cove Point) tendered for filing additional workpapers to 
support its March 1, 2001 filing in this docket. Cove Point submitted 
its March 1, 2001 filing pursuant to Section 1.37 of the General Terms 
and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff to revise the retainage 
percentages for its peaking services and transportation services, to be 
effective April 1, 2001. Cove Point asserts that the purpose of this 
filing is to comply with the Commission's March 28 order, 94 FERC para. 
61,358 (2001).
    Cove Point further states that copies of this filing is being 
served to its affected customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 22, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12652 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M