alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas
Morrow, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Home School Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify that:  1.
I have reviewed the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009;  2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 this report;  4.
I am responsible 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 under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including any consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a.
All significant deficiencies 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.  HOME SCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.

/s/ Thomas Morrow(Registrant)

Thomas MorrowChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Authorized Officer) Dated: January 26, 2010
Las investigaciones de NIOSH 

confirman la necesidad de hacer 

pruebas anuales: el 10 % de los 

sujetos no pasaron la prueba de 

ajuste después de usar un respirador 

de la misma marca, modelo y 

tamaño por un año. 

Las investigaciones de NIOSH también 

parecen indicar que las personas que 

hayan bajado más de 20 lb deben 

priorizar volver a hacer de inmediato 

la prueba de ajuste. Otros cambios 

faciales por los que se requiere hacer 

esta prueba son aumento considerable de peso, 

trabajo dental extenso, cicatrices nuevas o 

cirugía cosmética. El ajuste del respirador PUEDE

cambiar con el tiempo. Si su 

respirador no tiene buen ajuste, 

no cumple su función.

Si el ajuste del respirador no es 

aceptable, se le debe dar la oportunidad 

al trabajador de seleccionar un 

respirador diferente y de volver a hacer 

la prueba. 

Instituto Nacional para la Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional

Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades

Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos

Datos de NIOSH

¿Por qué se requieren las 

PRUEBAS DE AJUSTE anuales?

La OSHA requiere las pruebas de ajuste anuales: 26 CFR 1910.134

¡Llegó el momento de hacer 

la prueba de ajuste anual!

Generalmente solo toma 

entre 15 y 20 minutos.

En pocas palabras...

Administrador Trabajador

¿Podemos hacerla otro día? 

Tengo tanto que hacer.

Yo estoy ocupado. Usted está 

ocupado. ¿Por qué es necesario 

hacerla TODOS LOS AÑOS?

Si su respirador no tiene buen ajuste, no puede protegerlo eficazmente. La 

OSHA requiere las pruebas de ajuste anuales: 29 CFR 1910.134

Fuentes: OSHA Fit Testing Procedures 1910.134, Appendix A, https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9780

New NIOSH Study Supports the OSHA Annual Fit Testing Requirements for Filtering Facepiece Respirators, http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2016/01/05/fit-testing/

Día del
Presidential Documents

1133 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 5 

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of January 5, 2007 

Assignment of Functions Regarding the Citizens Health Care 

Working Group 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

By virtue of authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and 

laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3 of the United 

States Code, the functions of the President under section 1014(o)(1) of the 

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 

(Public Law 108–173) are assigned to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, January 5, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–67 

Filed 1–8–07; 11:11 am] 

Billing code 4110–60–M 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS6GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
¿Puede responder a todas las preguntas siguientes?

Si no puede responder, es responsabilidad de su empleador 

asegurarse de que usted tenga la capacitación adecuada. Se 

debe capacitar a los empleados anualmente, cuando cambien las 

condiciones de exposición, cuando se use un nuevo tipo o modelo de 

respirador o cuando el nivel de conocimiento que tiene el empleado 

sobre el respirador o su uso indique que sea necesario (por ejemplo, 

el supervisor observa que el empleado no lo usa correctamente).

Instituto Nacional para la Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional

Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades

Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos

¿Por qué es necesario el respirador?

(Por ejemplo, nombre los peligros respiratorios y explique cómo 

un respirador que no se ajuste, no se use o no se mantenga de 

manera adecuada puede afectar su acción protectora).

1.

¿Puede reconocer los signos y síntomas médicos que 

podrían limitar o prevenir el uso eficaz del respirador? 6.

¿Cuáles son los procedimientos para su mantenimiento y 

almacenamiento? 5.

¿Cómo se inspecciona, coloca, quita y usa el respirador? y, 

cuando corresponda, ¿cómo se revisan los sellos 

del respirador?

4.

¿Cómo se usa el respirador eficazmente en situaciones de 

emergencia, incluso en las que falle el respirador? 3.

2. ¿Cuáles son las limitaciones y las capacidades del respirador?

Acaba de completar su

CAPACITACIÓN anual 

en RESPIRADORES...

Día del
# C_2011053EN.01000601.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6073 — Daimler/Beiqi Foton Motor CO/Beijing Foton Daimler Automotive CO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 53/02

On 14 February 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6073. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6073. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

OCEAN REEF DEVELOPERS II, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-104/RS-EMT 

MIKE MADDOX,

Respondent. 

_________________________________________ 

UORDER

Before me is the Amended Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice. (Doc. 11). 

This case is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on August 12, 2011. 

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00104-RS-EMT Document 12 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DALE A COPEMANN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00040-MP-GRJ

SUSAN ALTMAN, LINDA BUSH,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 10, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this case be dismissed as frivolous. The plaintiff filed

objections, Doc. 11, and the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the

Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court

agrees that the plaintiff, who seeks $30,000,000 under the Fourteenth Amendment, has failed to

allege that the defendants are state actors or that their conduct rises to the level of a

constitutional violation even if they were. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and

incorporated herein.

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is DENIED and

this cause is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00040-MP-GRJ Document 12 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011075EN.01000101.xml

| 9.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6038 — EDFT-L/ATIC/STMC6 JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 75/01

On 2 March 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6038. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6038. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
### 'UM>AQ&L 

# a^^L^tixJ^BSt

^M&h^iJA^-

lMM/-£$<+353$- llLM&L • RECEIVED INM^rm2_ AbelAcosia, Clerk 

### JdLC&jfc^dLi/L 1AM2JL 

### 4©/-^4^^S^^ ^^.j2^^w^^^ 

### '$lU4Utte^^ £>3}lI^JJ£?3£L_



### ,J^U^^-\J-&/23- 

## 3 -£l 

### izJ^2ajLu 72/^

## ^^JmJ^sM^- 1£&Jn_ ZUM1M



### ^M^lM T- TO£L

'SIctJF
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 73857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6213]



[[Page 73857]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel Review R03s, R21.
    Date: February 5, 2008.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, National 
Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher 
Bldg., Rm 4AN38F, Bethesda, MD 20892-6402, (301) 594-4809, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f994988b80a6929c959580b9979091d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f49995868dab9f9198988db49a9d9cda939b82">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 19, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-6213 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE v. CARL GREEN COLLINS.

(Filed 10 November, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bailey, J.,*April, 1965 Special Session, WaKE Superior Court.

This criminal prosecution originated by bill of indictment returned by the Wake County Grand Jury charging the defendant with operating a motor vehicle upon the public highways at a speed of 90 miles per hour in a 60-mile per hour zone. The defendant, through counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. The record and the addendum thereto disclose a lawful jury was impaneled and after hearing the evidence returned a verdict of guilty. From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Bernard A. Harrell, Assistant Attorney General 'for the State.*

*Earle R. Purser for defendant appellant.*

PeR Curiam.

The officer testified that the defendant operated his vehicle on Public Highway No. 64 near Apex at a speed in excess of 90 miles per hour in a zone in which the authorities had posted a maximum speed limit of 60 miles per hour. The officer used a speed testing device consisting of a battery, cables, and stop clock. The device was tested for accuracy just before and shortly after the defendant crossed this testing device. The test showed the measurements and timing to be accurate, the operator to be experienced and accurate in its use. The defendant testified, denying that he was operating the speeding vehicle, but that a driver at an excessive speed passed him going in the same direction shortly before the officers overtook and stopped him, and that the officer’s identification *597of his vehicle was a mistake. He offered a photograph of the road over which the officer followed him, which the court excluded. If we may assume there was technical error in not permitting the defendant to offer the photograph for the purpose of illustrating his testimony, the error is not deemed prejudicial. The officer’s testimony and the defendant’s as to the identity of the vehicle and driver were in direct conflict. On the question of identity of a vehicle and driver, a photographic illustration of the highway was not of material consequence. The evidence essentially presented a question of fact which the jury resolved against the defendant.

No error.
Exhibit 32.02





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Rachel L. Dillard,
Chief Financial Officer of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc.



|                   |        |                        
|------------------ | ------ | -----------------------
|                   | By:    | /s/ RACHEL L. DILLARD  
|Date: May 15, 2012 | Name:  | Rachel L. Dillard      
|                   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer



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.
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 4:11cv59-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM SORROWS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv59-RH/WCS

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 35. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is DISMISSED 

with prejudice.” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on December 19, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00059-RH-WCS Document 36 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11082

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN PERRONE, also known as Steven Nicholas Perrone,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-41-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Perrone appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of

his supervised release for possession with the intent to distribute

methamphetamine. Perrone was sentenced above the advisory range to 10

months of imprisonment and 50 months of supervised release. He argues that

the district court committed procedural error by failing to articulate sufficient

reasons for the imposition of the sentence above the advisory range.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 11, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-11082 Document: 00511882939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2012
No. 11-11082

The plainly unreasonable standard of review applies to revocation

sentences. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132

S. Ct. 496 (2011). This standard is a more deferential standard than the

reasonableness standard that applies to sentences imposed upon conviction. Id.

Perrone contends that his revocation sentence should be reviewed under

the standard of reasonableness set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Although Perrone concedes that this argument is foreclosed in light of

Miller, he wishes to preserve for review a challenge to this court’s holding in

Miller.

By expressly referencing the applicable factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the

district court showed its consideration of the nature and circumstances of

Perrone’s supervised release violations and his history and characteristics. See

§ 3553(a)(1). Additionally, the district court noted that prior attempts at

rehabilitation had proved unsuccessful and expressed its opinion that a sentence

of imprisonment was essential in Perrone’s case. Considering the entirety of the

record, the court’s statements suggest that the court based the revocation

sentence upon the nature of the supervised release violations and the number

of positive drug tests. Although the court’s comments were brief, the statements

reflected that the court “considered the parties’ arguments and [had] a reasoned

basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Perrone has not shown that this court’s ability

to review the sentence has been affected and therefore does not show that the

court committed procedural error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256,

263-64 (5th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-11082 Document: 00511882939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CENTENNIAL BANK, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv20/RS-CJK

EDTC & B, LLC; EDDIE RAY EANES;

DAN GILL; TIM RAMSEY; CHRIS

MONTGOMERY; CHARLES BUTLER;

DAVID F. PANETTI; and STATE OF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Final Judgment In Foreclosure

Under Count I And Partial Final Judgment Of Liability Under Counts II and III (Doc. 80).

Defendants have not filed responses. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C)(1) provides “Failure to

file a responsive memorandum may be sufficient cause to grant the motion.”

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Summary judgment is granted for Plaintiff as to Count I. Final Judgment

of Foreclosure under Count I shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff

foreclosing its mortgage and security interest liens. 

2. Partial summary judgment of liability is entered under Counts II and III in

favor of Plaintiff under the promissory note and guarantees against

Defendants, EDTC & B, LLC, EDDIE RAY EANES, DAN GILL, TIM

RAMSEY, CHRIS MONTGOMERY, and CHARLES BUTLER.

Case 5:11-cv-00020-RS-CJK Document 85 Filed 10/25/11 Page 1 of 2
3. A deficiency judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff if the proceeds

from the foreclosure sale of the subject property are insufficient to set aside the amount

owed to plaintiff.

4. Pre-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees shall be awarded to

Plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff shall file not later than November 10, 2011, an itemization of all

amounts claimed by it, including calculations of accrued interest and a daily interest

amount.

ORDERED on October 25, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00020-RS-CJK Document 85 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 2