alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
       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; andd)
    
    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;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Clent RichardsonClent RichardsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 67120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31435]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Announcement of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. 
Army-Owned Patent

AGENCY: Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces that, unless there is 
objection, in sixty days it will grant an Exclusive license to 
Rheinmettal Gmbh, Dusseldorf, Germany, on U.S. Army Patent 5,328,130 
entitled ``Stabilizer for a Cannon Projectile'' by Stewart Gilman and 
Anthony Farina based upon Serial No. 08/000,032 filed January 4, 1993, 
Docket No. DAR-49-91. Notice of availability for licensing this was 
previously announced in the Federal Register on June 4, 1993. (Vol. 58, 
No. 106.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Edward Goldberg, Chief, Intellectual Property Law Division, AMSTA-
AR-GCL, U.S. Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, telephone 
number (201) 724-6950.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written objections must be filed on or 
before February 26, 1996.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-31435 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (2.6 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6597

ROBERT ANTWAIN STANBACK,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FAYE DANIELS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. (1:16-cv-01301-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Antwain Stanback, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Antwain Stanback seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report 

recommending that the district court dismiss Stanback’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Stanback seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
8132 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Costanoan-Rumsen Carmel Tribe;

Receipt of Petition for Federal

Acknowledgment of Existence as an

Indian Tribe

This is published in the exercise of

authority delegated by the Secretary of

the Interior to the Assistant Secretary -

Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.8(a)(formerly

25 CFR 54.8(a)) notice is hereby given

that the

Costanoan-Rumsen Carmel Tribe,

c/o Tony Cerda,

3929 Riverside Drive,

Chino, California 91710

has filed a petition for acknowledgment

by the Secretary of the Interior that the

group exists as an Indian tribe. The

petition was received by the Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) on August 24, 1994,

and was signed by members of the

group’s governing body.

This is a notice of receipt of petition

and does not constitute notice that the

petition is under active consideration.

Notice of active consideration will be

sent by mail to the petitioner and other

interested parties at the appropriate

time.

Under § 83.8(d)(formerly 54.8(d)) of

the Federal regulations, interested

parties may submit factual and/or legal

arguments in support of or in opposition

to the group’s petition. Any information

submitted will be made available on the

same basis as other information in the

BIA’s files. Such submissions will be

provided to the petitioner upon receipt

by the BIA. The petitioner will be

provided an opportunity to respond to

such submissions prior to a final

determination regarding the petitioner’s

status.

The petition may be examined, by

appointment, in the Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Branch of Acknowledgment and

Research, Room 1362-MIB, 1849 C

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240,

Phone: (202) 208-3592.

Dated: January 24, 1995.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–3308 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02136]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of; 10292 The Peoples Bank; Winder, Georgia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (``FDIC'') as Receiver for The Peoples Bank, Winder, 
Georgia (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its receivership for 
said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of The Peoples Bank 
on September 17, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has 
been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in 
accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend 
payment to proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: February 1, 2016.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02136 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ALAN WILKINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 584 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### CLAUDE B. WILLIAMS, Administrator of the Estate of D. C. WILLIAMS, Deceased, v. ROCKFISH MILLS, Incorporated, Employer, and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier.

(Filed 19 October, 1932.)

Appeal by defendants from *Grady, J.,*at May Term, 1932, of CUMBERLAND.

Affirmed.

*Thos. A. Banks and S. Warren Bailey for appellants.*

*Edward S. Cook and E. G. Bobinson for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court sustaining an award of the Industrial Commission in behalf of the plaintiff. The intestate, D. C. Williams, in a collision of automobiles suffered injury which caused his death. The Industrial Commission found that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. This finding is contested by the appellant. There is evidence tending to sustain the findings upon which the award was based. The judgment of the Superior Court is

Affirmed.

Stacy, C. J., and Brogden, J., dissenting.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 0.22% 0.01% -1.71% -5.7

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Coverage of Employment

Proposed Provision: Cover newly hired State and local government employees beginning in 2

January 4, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 1.20 1.53 33% 35%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Category of Change: Coverage of Employment or Earnings, or Inclusion of Other Sources of Revenue

Summary Measures and Graphs

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: F11. Apply a separate 12.4-percent tax on net investment income (NII), as defined in 

the Affordable Care Act (ACA), payable to the OASI and DI Trust Funds with an unindexed threshold of 

$400,000, effective 2025 and later. The NII tax would apply to the lesser of NII and the excess of modified 

adjusted income (MAGI) above the unindexed threshold of $400,000. This single threshold would apply 

regardless of tax filing status.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
#### STATE v. JIM WALDROOP.

(Filed 21 December, 1927.)

Homicide — Instructions—Murder—Manslaughter—Self-Defense.

The charge of the judge to the jury in this action for the commission of a homicide is approved on the principles of second-degree murder, manslaughter and self-defense in the same case as reported in 193 N. 0., p. 12.

Appeal by defendant from *Stack, J.,*and a jury, at April Term, 1927, of Cherokee.

No error.

*752
      *Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the Slate.*

*Moody & Moody for defendant.*

ClaeicsoN, J.

This case was bere before, *S. v. Waldroop,*193 N. C., p. 12. Tbe writer of tbe main opinion said, at p. 14: “Tbe record discloses evidence tending to establish eacb of tbe three degrees of felonious homicide as well as tbe defendant’s right to acquittal on tbe ground of self-defense.”

Tbe defendant was convicted of manslaughter and a new trial granted, two Justices dissenting — not on tbe law as stated, but tbe interpretation put on tbe instruction. In tbe present case defendant was found “guilty of murder in tbe second degree.” In neither trial did tbe State ask for conviction of defendant for murder in tbe first degree, although, from *the*record, there was evidence on tbe part of tbe State, if believed by tbe jury, sufficient to sustain a conviction.

As to tbe evidence bearing on self-defense, tbe court below charged as follows: “But if be has satisfied you from tbe evidence that tbe killing was without malice, but has failed to satisfy you that tbe killing was not unlawful, then be would be guilty of manslaughter and that would be your verdict. But, if be has rebutted, to your satisfaction, both of the presumptions raised by tbe law from tbe killing with a deadly weapon, and has satisfied you, gentlemen of tbe jury, that be bad been assaulted by tbe deceased with a pistol, and that by reason of such assault, while free from blame himself and in tbe exercise of ordinary firmness, be actually feared and bad reasonable grounds to fear that bis life was in danger or that be was in danger of great bodily barm, and that be used such force only as was necessary, or such force as appeared to him reasonably necessary at tbe time to save bis life or to protect himself from great bodily barm, such necessity, real or apparent, to be determined by you and not him, upon all tbe facts and circumstances as they reasonably appeared to him at tbe time and under these conditions, if you find that tbe defendant took tbe life of tbe deceased, tbe homicide would be excusable and your verdict would be ‘not guilty.’ ”

In tbe charge tbe court below was following tbe opinion of this Court on tbe former appeal. On tbe whole record we can find no prejudicial or reversible error.

No error.
II 

Calendar No. 40 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 325 

[Report No. 117–12] 

To amend the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native 

Children Act to extend the deadline for a report by the Alyce Spotted 

Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2021 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. SULLIVAN, and Mr. TESTER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs 

APRIL 14, 2021 

Reported by Mr. SCHATZ, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children Act to extend the deadline 

for a report by the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter 

Soboleff Commission on Native Children, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 325 RS

1 SECTION 1. ALYCE SPOTTED BEAR AND WALTER SOBOLEFF 

2 COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN REPORT. 

3 Section 3(f) of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter 

4 Soboleff Commission on Native Children Act (Public Law 

5 114–244; 130 Stat. 987) is amended, in the matter pre6 ceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘3 years’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘5 years’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 40 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 325 

[Report No. 117–12] 

A BILL 

To amend the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter 

on Native Children, and for other purposes. Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission extend the deadline for a report by the Alyce Soboleff Commission on Native Children Act to 

APRIL 14, 2021 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31049]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity 
(ORI) has made final findings of scientific misconduct in the following 
case:
    Ms. Victoria Santa Cruz, University of Arizona: Based on an 
investigation conducted by the institution, ORI found that Ms. Victoria 
Santa Cruz, former Program Coordinator, College of Nursing, University 
of Arizona, engaged in scientific misconduct by fabricating interview 
data on a questionnaire intended for use in two studies funded by two 
Public Health Service (PHS) grants.
    Ms. Santa Cruz did not contest the ORI findings or administrative 
actions, which require that, for a period of three years, any 
institution that proposes her participation in PHS-supported research 
must submit a supervisory plan designed to ensure the scientific 
integrity of her contribution. Ms. Santa Cruz is also prohibited from 
serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to 
service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review 
committee, or as a consultant for a period of three (3) years.
    Because the studies involved are ongoing, no publications were 
affected by the fabricated data, and no clinical treatment has been 
based on the results of the studies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Division of Research 
Investigations, Office of Research Integrity, 5515 Security Lane, Suite 
700, Rockville, MD 20852.
Lyle W. Bivens,
Director, Office of Research Integrity.
[FR Doc. 95-31049 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-M
#### E. E. CHESSON v. B. B. COMBS and JULIAN L. POSTON.

(Filed 1 February, 1952.)

Appeal and Error § 38—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Valentine, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Morris, J.,*at February Term, 1951, of Tykrell.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged false imprisonment.

Tbe defendants’ motion for judgment of nonsuit, made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence, was allowed, and from judgment based on such ruling the plaintiff appealed, assigning errors.

*W. L. Whitley and J. G. Meekins, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Bailey & Bailey and H. L. Swain for defendants, appellees.*

Per Cukiam.

This Court being evenly divided in opinion as to the correctness of the ruling of the court below, Justice Valentine not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, without becoming a precedent.

Affirmed.

YaleNtine, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
### Proposed Provision: B3.13. For retired worker beneficiaries newly eligible in 2030 (excluding disabled workers), add a new bend point at the wage-indexed equivalent of the 50th percentile of the AIME distribution minus $100 (for 2015 eligibility) and change the PIA factors to 95/32/15/5. Also move the current-law first bend point from the wage-indexed equivalent of $1,115 in 2023 to $1,417 in 2023. Phase this provision in over 10 years (2030-2039). The phase-in would work on a weighted-average basis: 90% of CL formula + 10% of proposal formula for 2030, 80% of CL formula + 20% of proposal formula for 2031, and so on.