alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Paul S. Shipman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; 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 (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 control over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2007         BY: /s/ Paul S. Shipman Paul S. Shipman*Chief Executive Officerand Chaiman of the Board*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MAY 3, 1997 AND UNAUDITED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MAY 3, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                           4,581
<SECURITIES>                                     9,995
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     27,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,857
<PP&E>                                          64,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,891)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,527
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,677
<SALES>                                         23,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,918
<CGS>                                           15,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    23
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (272)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,225)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,225)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,225)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                          SI DIAMOND TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months ended Sept. 30,         Six Months ended Sept. 30,
                                                         -------------------------------       ----------------------------
                                                             1999              1998               1999              1998
                                                         ------------       ------------       -----------      -----------

<S>                                                      <C>                <C>                <C>              <C>
Computation of income (loss) per common share:

   Net income (loss) applicable to common
       shareholders                                      $   (817,199)      $   (851,451)      $ 1,648,452      $(3,141,894)

   Weighted average number of common shares                52,452,781         43,175,501        50,358,595       34,616,869

   Net income (loss) per common share                    $      (0.02)      $      (0.02)      $      0.03      $     (0.09)


Computation of income (loss) per common
   share assuming full dilution:

   Net income (loss) applicable to common
      stockholders
                                                                                                 1,648,452

   Plus: Income impact of assumed conversions
      Series G                                                                                     110,916
      Interest
                                                                                                    21,832

   Income available to common stockholders                                                       1,781,200

   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                                                                        50,358,595

   Plus incremental shares from dilutive securities
      Convertible preferred stock                                                                1,732,303
      Convertible notes payable                                                                    849,108
      Warrants                                                                                     621,557
      Options                                                                                    3,542,473
   Adjusted weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding
                                                                                                57,104,036

Net income (loss) per common share                                                                    0.03

</TABLE>


   No computation of diluted loss per common share is included for the 1998
     periods or for the three months ended September 30, 1999 because such
         computation results in an antidilutive loss per common share.
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 Agriculture

# AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service.

# ACTION:

Notice; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Agriculture published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 12, 2010, concerning a request for comments on the information collection “Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers” OMB control number 0584-0083. The document contained incorrect burden hours. The total burden hours should be 7,537 not 2,849 as published.                    

Ruth Brown,

Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-27507 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
#### James Joseph OWENS-EL, Appellant, v. Bill HEDRICK, Warden, Appellee.

No. 03-2106.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 3, 2003.

Decided Sept. 11, 2003.

James Joseph Owens-El, pro se, Florence, CO, Petitioner-Appellant.

Cynthia Jean Hyde, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Springfield, MO, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

*686PER CURIAM.

James J. Owens-El appeals the District Court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Owens-El’s motion. *See Arnold v. Wood, 238*F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; Rule 60(b) is not vehicle for reargument of merits, and movant must show exceptional circumstances to justify relief), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 975, 122 S.Ct. 400, 151 L.Ed.2d 304 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### S. Roberts et al. *v.*M. Duerson.

Surety for Married Woman.

The surety in a married woman’s bond is responsible, however ineffectual it may be as to her.

APPEAL PROM JEP PERSON CIRCUIT1 COURT.

*Jeff*Brown, for Appellants.

*Pirile <&*Oaruth, for Appellee.

February 26, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

There is no evidence in the case that Mrs. Duerson was a married woman when she sued out the distress warrant.

O. Roberts was the owner of the property bonded by Mrs. Roberts and her surety, except the piano, when he subleased the premises for the remainder of the term, and when he removed it onto the premises; consequently, a lien then attached to it. The subsequent conveyance of the property to the use of his wife was not for a valuable consideration but voluntarily, and could not exonerate it from liability for the rent; therefore her surety in the claimant’s bond being under no disability became responsible, however ineffectual may have been the bond as to Mrs. Roberts, she being a married woman when she signed it. The judgment against the surety in the bond was proper and it is, therefore, affirmed, with damages.
#### Carroll Larkins *v.*John Garnett.

A Deed Absolute in Terms May Only be Surety for Debt.

There being a borrowing and lending, *prima,*facie, the deeds are to be considered as the surety for the indebtedness.

Same;

The presumption of law may be strengthened by parol evidence.

APPEAL PROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1866.

-Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

The first deed by appellee to appellant of the tract of about seventy acres was in consideration of a loan of $200.

Appellee, a few days after making the first deed, procured appellant to replevy execution for him to the amount of about $90 more, and then executed the second deed, which is unconditional on its face.

The land was then worth from $500 to $700. :

*365- There being a borrowing and lending, *prima, facie,*the deeds are-to be considered as the surety for the indebtedness, and the parol evidence strengthens this presumption of law.

Although there was no usury contracted to be paid, yet the payment of the land in consideration of the amount advanced would be enormously usurious.

The judgment is affirmed.
Note A: Included in prior columns 

Complete integration of PIV credentials with physical access systems: December 1, 2009 

HSPD‐12 Implementation Status Report

Date: Number of 

Employees requiring PIV credentials* 

Number of Employees requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) that have not previously undergone a background check* 

Number of Employees requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) with background investigation in process* 

Number of Employees with completed/ adjudicated NACI (or equivalent background investigation) * 

Total Number of PIV credentials Issued to Employees* 

Number of Contractors requiring PIV credentials 

Number of Contractors requiring NACI (or at least equivalent) that have not previously undergone a background check 

Number of Contractors requiring a NACI (or at least equivalent) with background investigation in process 

Number of Contractors with completed/ adjudicated NACI (or equivalent background investigation) 

Tof crIsC

Mar/2007 18,750 0 N/A N/A 0 70,996 52,885 N/A N/A 0 Jun/2007 18,693 2,808 N/A N/A 17 56,487 35,159 N/A N/A 4 Sept/2007 18,787 0 N/A N/A 14 54,005 15,363 N/A N/A 1Dec/2007 17,751 208 2,578 16,051 86 58,909 3,747 30,459 24,753 5Mar/2008 17,414 203 2,221 16,377 1,394 58,422 4,036 29,395 26,391 1Jun/2008 7,286 636 4,136 14,033 11,519 34,710 3,605 25,684 26,099 2Sep/2008 1,696 253 3,806 14,376 16,739 24,147 3,094 21,053 36,499 4Dec/2008 480 232 3,749 14,538 17,990 6,947 1,599 18,708 39,969 5Mar/2009 464 187 3,870 14,647 18,240 6,008 860 17,853 41,083 5Jun/2009 599 228 3,675 14,992 18,296 8,706 2,466 22,515 40,099 5Sept/2009 661 231 2,862 15,880 18,312 7,811 2,350 20,011 43,603 5Dec/2009 591 263 2,302 16,387 18,361 8,217 1,993 17,149 46,269 5Mar/2010 582 236 2,334 16,354 18,342 5,871 219 14,869 48,422 5Jun/2010 562 291 1,459 17,235 18,423 6,548 216 11,677 50,511 5Sept/2010 573 162 1,499 17,452 18,540 9,768 244 8,593 52,229 5
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1908 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1908

   To allow certain Mexican nationals to be admitted as nonimmigrant 
                   visitors for a period of 6 months.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2003

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow certain Mexican nationals to be admitted as nonimmigrant 
                   visitors for a period of 6 months.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADMISSION FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT VISITORS.

    A Mexican national described in section 212.1(c)(1)(i) of title 8 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act, shall be admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor for 
a period of 6 months.
                                 <all>
```
#### Shirley and Others *v.*Shields and Others.—In error.

CERTAIN persons claiming to be creditors of *A.,*filed a bill in chancery against him and his infant children, to subject certain land to the payment, of the complainants’ claims, which land, it was alleged, the father had caused to be conveyed to his children to defraud his creditors. Some of the complainants were judgment-creditors; the others were not. The father answered and confessed the bill. The infants answered by their guardian *ad litem*in the usual form. *Held,*that a decree for the complainants, on no other evidence than the father’s answer, was erroneous. *Held,*also, that those complainants who were not judgment-creditors should not have been parties to the suit. *Kipper*v. *Glancey,*2 Blackf. *356.*— West v. *M‘Carty,*4 *id.*244 (1).

(1)

*Vide O’BHen v. Coulter,*2 Blackf. 421.
Recommendation: 

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Specify Mission Objectives 

2012-01-02 (HEOC-02) 

The Council recommends developing specific mission objectives for Exploration Mission-2 

(EM-2) that justify the need for a crewed lunar orbit mission. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The current mission objective for EM-2 is listed as, "Demonstrate crewed flight beyond Low 

Earth Orbit (LEO)." Crewed flight beyond LEO was demonstrated more than 40 years ago in 

the Apollo program. NASA needs to show how EM-2 fits within the architecture for future 

human exploration beyond LEO and ensure that the objectives for a crewed lunar mission are 

consistent with the cost and risks involved. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

NASA leaves itself open to public criticism and loss of Congressional support if it cannot 

sufficiently justify the need for conducting a mission such as EM-2. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with comment Mission objectives for Exploration Mission-2, our first 

planned test flight with crew, has the primary mission objective of exercising the 

Environmental Control/Life Support Systems with the intended crew of four in a beyond LEO 

environment. Although this test flight could be accomplished in LEO, the added benefit of 

exercising the mission control team in planning and executing the overall escape/insertion 

burns, navigational waypoints, and command/communications blackout zones is something 

that this generation of flight controllers has not yet experienced. We assert that these benefits 

are commensurate with the risks associated with exposing our crew to a beyond LEO mission 

and attaining exploration objectives to demonstrate necessary capabilities for exploration 

missions to asteroids, cis-lunar space, and ultimately Mars . . Additionally, NASA continues to 

assess other potential mission profiles that could be accomplished during EM-2 that utilize, to 

the fullest extent possible, the capabilities of the Block 1 Space Launch System and Orion 

spacecraft. 

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Belmont Capital Management, Inc. as General Partner of Bromwell Financial
Fund, LP, certify that (i) the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007
of Bromwell Financial Fund, LP fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Bromwell Financial Fund, LP.


BROMWELL FINANCIAL FUND, LP
By:	Belmont Capital Management, Inc., General Partner



By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer


Date:	April 1, 2008

<page>
# Sitemap

## May 10, 2019

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2019
- 05
- May 10, 2019

            - In Case You Missed It: A Weekly Summary of Top Content from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
            - The waxing crescent moon just above Earth’s limb
            - The waxing crescent moon just above Earth’s limb
            - 50 Years Ago: One Week to Apollo 10
            - Joe Acaba: Geologist and Teacher Turned Astronaut
            - Meet the Women in Charge of NASA’s Science Divisions
            - The Heroes Behind the Heroes: Part 4
            - Hubble Peers at an Ancient Galaxy Cluster
            - Sols 2404-2406: (Starting to) Drive Away!
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-1108

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00079-ZLW)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. 

R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1108 Document: 01018430910 Date Filed: 05/27/2010 Page: 1
No. 07-14-00391-CR

Abel Cervantes

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 364th District Court

of Lubbock County

June 9, 2015

Opinion by Justice Hancock

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated June 9, 2015

, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 24, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RALPH MERCADO, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JO WADAS; H. TRAPP; RALPH

SMITH; LLOYD HARVEY, 

 Defendants - Appellants, 

and 

M. BARBEE; MARK MASER;

 JOHN DOE #1; R. CURRIN; JOHN OR

JANE DOE #2; TIFFANY CRAWFORD;

JOHN DOE #3, 

 Defendants.

No. 10-1203

 (D. C. No. 1:06-CV-02303-WYD-MJW)

 

ORDER

Appellants’ motion to dismiss appeal is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

This order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1203 Document: 01018427870 Date Filed: 05/24/2010 Page: 1