alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**        I,Dennis G. McLaughlin, III, Chief Executive Officer of Earth Biofuels, Inc., certify that:        1. Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Earth Biofuels, Inc.;        2.        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading 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 presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;        4.        The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols 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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and         c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and        5.        The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):                                a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.   Date: June 13, 2007    /s/ Dennis G. McLaughlin,III  Dennis G. McLaughlin, III
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 State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 524-2]

By virtue of the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, including by Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 (August 28, 2000), and to the extent permitted by law, I hereby delegate to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges the authorities and functions in section 102 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452), relating to the provision by grant, contract or otherwise for educational and cultural exchanges.

Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs.

This Delegation of Authority does not revoke or otherwise affect any other delegation of authority currently in effect.

Any reference in this Delegation of Authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.

                    This Delegation shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Lee A. Satterfield,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-12932 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
IN RE Minor L. MCNEIL, Petitioner.

No. 18-1497.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 6:23-cv-00495

Joseph Dasek,

Plaintiff,

v.

East Texas Treatment Facility,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Dasek, a former inmate of the East Texas 

Treatment Facility in Henderson, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed 

this lawsuit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. Doc. 2. 

The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Doc. 4. The magistrate judge also ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint setting out a short 

and plain statement of his claims. Doc. 3. 

When plaintiff did not respond to these orders, the magistrate 

judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the 

court. Doc. 5. A copy of this report was sent to plaintiff at his last 

known address, but it was returned as undeliverable. To date, plaintiff has not advised the court of his present mailing address or current whereabouts. 

The complaint form which plaintiff filed contains a declaration 

stating “I understand, if I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the court informed of my current mailing address and 

failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. Doc. 1 at 

5. See also Local Rule CV-11(d) (“A pro se litigant must provide the 

Court with a physical address . . . and is responsible for keeping the 

clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”). 

Case 6:23-cv-00495-JCB-KNM Document 7 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19
- 2 -

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court 

accepts its findings and recommendation. The lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the court. 

So ordered by the court on February 14, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00495-JCB-KNM Document 7 Filed 02/14/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20
# C_2018067EN.01000302.xml

| 22.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8748 — Dr. Oetker/Bake & Co)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/05)

On 15 February 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8748. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8748. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018374EN.01001301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/13 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8947 — Nidec/Whirlpool (Embraco Business))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 374/06)

1.

On 8 October 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018374EN.01001301-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Nidec Corporation (‘Nidec’) (Japan), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Embraco (Brazil), controlled by Whirlpool Corporation (USA). |

Nidec acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Embraco.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for undertaking Nidec: manufacture and sale of motors, compressors for use in refrigeration appiances, drives, electric power generation solutions, machinery, electronic and optical components and other products,

—   for undertaking Embraco: manufacture and sale of compressors for use in refrigeration appliances.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8947 — Nidec/Whirlpool (Embraco Business)

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018374EN.01001301-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
EXHIBIT
32.2






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 the Quarterly Report of Performance Health Technologies, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, James E. Bartolomei, 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:





1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.






Date:  November 19, 2008
                  
                  /s/ James
      E. BartolomeiJames
      E. BartolomeiChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Terry Antonio LEE, Petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 19-7703.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 7 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00407

- CV

SANTOS SAN JUAN D/B/ A SANTOS WRECKER REP AIR , Appellant

V.
JOSE SEGOVIA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 06117

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In two issues, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s answer to Jury Question No. 3 regarding appellee’s damages

. We affirm because appellant has not preserved error. We may not consider unpreserved issues. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lenk
, 361 S.W.3d 602, 604 (Tex. 2012); see also Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Allright, Inc. v.
Pearson , 735 S.W.2d 240, 240 (Tex. 1987). In a case tried to a jury, legal and factual sufficiency issues must be preserved in the trial court

. See Daniels v.2

Empty Eye, Inc. , 368 S.W.3d 743, 748

– 49 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). A legal sufficiency challenge may be preserved in one of five ways: “(1) a motion for directed verdict, (2) a motion for judgmen t notwithstanding the verdict, (3) an objection to the submission of the issue to the jury, (4) a motion to disregard the jury’ s answer to a vital fact issue, or (5) a motion for new trial. ” Id.
A factual su fficiency challenge must be raised in a motion for new trial. Id. at 749 (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2)). Appellan t filed a motion for new trial and challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s answers to Question Nos. 1 and 2 concerning liability. But he did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s answer to Question No. 3 or any of the elements of damages he now challenges on appeal. Thus, appellant’s motion for new trial did not

prese rve any error urged on appeal

. See Halim v. Ramchandani , 203 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (no error preserved when arguments in motion for new trial differed from legal and factual sufficiency arguments made on appeal); s ee also City of Houston v. Precast Structures , 60 S.W.3d 331, 335

– 36 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). Neither the Reporter’s Record nor the Clerk’s Record show that appellant urged any of the other motions or objections necessary to pres erve a legal sufficiency challenge. Thus, appellant has not preserved error. See Halim , 203
S.W.3d at 487. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Sharon McCally Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, McCa lly, and Busby.
# C_2018218EN.01000101.xml

| 22.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8835 — Stadtwerke Olching/BAG Netz/NG Olching/Olching VerwaltungsGmbH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 218/01)

On 28 May 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8835. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8835. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
William JAMES, et al., Petitioners v. Barbara HUNT, et al.

No. 19-390

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Freya D. PEARSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6104

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

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

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 35986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; NCMRR Early Career Research 
Award.
    Date: July 7-8, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2137C, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Assisted 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kimberly L. Houston, M.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes 
of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 827-4902, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.929, 
Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 8, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-12798 Filed 6-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Salomon Brothers Variable Series Funds Inc

                                                            (2)
              Report of Independent Accountants
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Salomon Brothers Variable Series Funds Inc


In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of Salomon Brothers Variable Total Return Fund
(one of the portfolios constituting Salomon Brothers
Variable Series Funds Inc, hereafter referred to as the
Fund) for the year ended December 31, 2002, we considered
its internal control, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing
and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an
audit pertain to the entity's objective of preparing
financial statements for external purposes that are fairly
presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors
or fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of
any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness
of their design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of one or more of the internal control components
does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would
be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period
by employees in the normal course of performing their
assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use
of management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be
and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.




Pricewaterhous
eCoopers LLP

February 21,
2003
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Applicants, v. Adree EDMO, aka Mason Edmo.

No. 19A1038.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 21, 2020

Application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court denied. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the application.