alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS


Exhibit 31.1





I, Charles Gary Spaniak, Sr., certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;





2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report;





4.  The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and





6.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:   July 25, 2012


/s/ Charles Gary Spaniak, Sr.


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


Charles Gary Spaniak, Sr.


Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT  10(n)6
                                                           ALLETE 2006 FORM 10-K
<TABLE>
                                  ALLETE, INC.
                      NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
                           EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15, 2007
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                  <C>
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     BOARD RETAINERS <F1><F2>
           Stock                                                     $60,000
           Cash                                                      $30,000
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     COMMITTEE CASH RETAINERS <F1><F2>
           Audit                                                      $9,000
           Executive Compensation                                     $7,500
           Corporate Governance & Nominating                          $7,500
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     CHAIR CASH RETAINERS <F1><F2>
           Audit                                                      $8,500
           Executive Compensation                                     $5,500
           Corporate Governance & Nominating                          $4,500
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------

     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     LEAD DIRECTOR <F1><F2><F3>
           Board Stock Retainer                                      $60,000
           Board Cash Retainer                                       $30,000
           Lead Director Cash Retainer                               $25,000
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
<FN>
<F1> Cash retainers may be deferred under the Director Compensation Deferral
     Plan.
<F2> Cash retainers may be elected to be received in ALLETE stock.
<F3> Lead Director is not eligible for other committee or chair retainers.
</FN>
</TABLE>
**Exhibit      10(k)(12)**

**AMENDMENT      NO. 11 **

**TO**

**ALLTEL      CORPORATION PROFIT-SHARING PLAN**

**(January      1, 2002 Restatement)**

| 1**.** | Effective                as of December 1, 2006, Section 1.23 (Investment                Fund A ALLTEL Stock Midpoint)                is amended to provide as follows: |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Effective                as of December 1, 2006, Section 1.24 (Investment                Fund A ALLTEL Stock Range)                is amended to provide as follows: |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   |                       Effective as of December 1, 2006, Section 11.01 is amended to provide              as              follows: |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Effective                December 1, 2006, all amounts contributed to the Plan, as increased                or                decreased by income, expenditure, appreciation and depreciation,                shall                constitute a single fund known as the Trust Fund. The Trust Fund                shall be                invested in an (a) Investment Fund A and a (b) Guaranteed Principal                Investment Fund in accordance with the                following: |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER RUDOLPH BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3714

[March 21, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312010CF000427A, 312010CF000461A, and 

312010CF000462A.

Christopher Rudolph Brown, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
CLOSING REMARKS

Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior 

Privacy Policy Advisor, NIST
NEXT STEPS

• Release workshop summary

• Develop draft materials

– Tasks, skills, & knowledge

• Continue to welcome stakeholder 

feedback

• Final resources anticipated 2021
RESOURCES

Privacy Framework: 

www.nist.gov/privacy-framework

Workforce Advancement:

www.nist.gov/privacy-framework/workforce-advancement

Mailing List: 

List.nist.gov/privacyframework
& PROBLEM STATEMENT

Most entry barriers from traditional
niche market MC technologies removed

% Standardized (3GPP MCPTT)

% General Purpose Radio Technology (LTE)
# Interoperable

* All-IP

# Software based (VoIP-like)

but... |
there still exist implementation issues that |
limit Public Safety Innovation capabilities
when compared with Internet & Mobile technologies

P1. Heteregenous and complex

OEM INTEGRATION ; |

\
~----------4|-----------------------------------------!

manufacturer

P2. Proprietary or missing
internal MCPTT UE interfaces
bree

| | No AP
o al Proprietary nea
T

Researchers New product MCPTT

SERVICE . 05 vendor
PROVIDER
Prost

MCPTT ecosystem

Developers
Community

|

SS a
Be i Spee lor os
UE MVNO yeni a! NX
IM AUTH

ISIM

#6 The MCOP approach

Challenges
*# R&D in MCPTT complex ecosystem.
* Proprietary or all-in-one e2e solutions.
* Monolithic apps (MC-voice only).
* General purpose APIs missing MC mechanisms.
# VoLTE co-existence.
# Lack of common provisioning mechanisms.

Objectives
* Live and on-site MCPTT testbed.
* Definition of industry driven normalized APIs.
% Open Source SDK.
* Different level APIs.
¥ Validation
% Integration on live testbeds.

# McoP's targets

Stakeholders

* Industry and Researchers

* Not only telcos but...

* ...former OTT PTT solutions providers

* Small integrators

* PSOs’ IT departments

# New stakeholders, Internet & FOSS community,
volunteers, IoT....

Benefits

* Reduce Entry Barriers.

* Foster innovation & accelerate development.

* Share Lesson Learnt and MCPTT awareness.

* Avoid duplicated efforts.

* Democratization of MC access to newcomers.

%* Better understanding/troubleshooting protocols.
* Take advantage of the scale economy.

* Easier integration for all.

#6 The MCOP architecture and outcomes

CAMPUS OF
INTERNATIONAL
EXCELLENCE

eman ta zabal zazu

UPV EHU

* Open APIs to be implemented by UE vendors.

* Open Source MCPTT Client early release.

% Project site and live on-site/online testbeds.
* Tailored demo app using MCOP SDK.

* Detailed requirements and lesson learnt reports.
% Participation on plugtests/stakeholder events.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

September 18, 2009 

136988 (57) 

___________________________________________ 

In re SKYLER LEROY MCBRIDE, ALEXANDER 

GARAND MCBRIDE, and SAWYER DALE 

MCBRIDE, Minors. 

___________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 136988 

 COA: 282062 

Bay CC Family Division: 

RONALD D. MCBRIDE, JR., 06-009381-NA 

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

SUSAN MCBRIDE, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 CORRIGAN, J. (dissenting). 

 I would grant the respondent father’s motion for rehearing and grant leave to 

appeal for the reasons I expressed in my dissent to the order denying his original 

application for leave to appeal. In re McBride, 483 Mich 1095 (2009). Respondent and 

the Attorney General argued that respondent’s parental rights were wrongly terminated 

because the trial court deprived him of his rights to counsel and to participate in this case 

from the outset while he was in prison. Further, these errors arguably were not harmless 

because, had counsel been appointed, counsel may have established a guardianship with 

respondent’s sister, who requested custody from the court; such a guardianship could 

have averted the termination of respondent’s parental rights and permitted him to 

continue his relationships with his three adolescent sons. Most significantly, in the words 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 18, 2009 

0915 

 

2

of respondent’s pro per motion for rehearing, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that 

the complete denial of his right to counsel was harmless gives trial courts a “green light 

to violate parents[’] rights whenever they feel the need” because judges “will know that 

the courts will deny relief for those who appeal in the future.” A parent’s right to counsel 

during termination proceedings has thus been reduced to a right to counsel when an 

appellate court, in hindsight and without the benefit of any developed record in favor of 

the unrepresented parent, thinks that counsel might have made a difference. 

 KELLY, C.J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J.
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00066 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN R E FRED ADKINS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## ORDER
Before Justices Perkes , Benavides, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order
Relator , Fred Adkins, f iled a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on February 9 , 2014 contending that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside a jury verdict. Relator requests that this Court conduct a merits

- based review of the trial court’s order granting a new trial. See, e.g., In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc

. , 407 S.W.3d 746, 755

– 59 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Whataburger
Restaurants LP , 429 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Tex. 2 014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Health Care Unlimited, Inc ., 429 S.W.3d 600, 602 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).2

T he Court requests that the real party in interest , Antonio Gutierrez Tingle, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of
this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 2 nd day of M arch , 201 5

.
Time Monday September 21 Tuesday September 22 W

Se

8:00-8:30 Welcome/Overview Overview 8:30-9:30 Plenary 1: Raffaello D’Andrea Plenary 3: Ben Kuipers Plenar

9:30-10:00 Coffee Break Coffee Break C

10:00 -12:30 

MON-AM1: 

Model-based 

Performance 

Evaluation

MON-AM2: 

Performance Metrics 

for Sustainable 

Manufacturing 

TUE-AM1: 

The Role of 

Robotic 

Competitions in 

Advancing 

Intelligent 

Systems 

TUE-AM2: 

Is an Agent Theory of 

Mind Valuable for 

Adaptive, Intelligent 

Systems?

WED-AM1: 

Performance 

Measures for 

Mobile Robots 

12:30-14:00 Lunch Video Session

Lunch 

Food for Thought: Release of White Paper 

The Use of Reuse for Designing and 

Manufacturing Robots

14:00 - 15:00 Plenary 2: David Bruemmer Plenary 4:Paul Cohen 

WED-PM1: 

Issues in Design

Intelligent Syste

15:00-15:30 Coffee Break Coffee Break 

15:30 -17:30 

MON-PM1: 

Performance 

Assessment and 

Reliability of 

Unmanned 

Systems 

MON-PM2: 

Testing and 

Evaluation of 

Unmanned 

Autonomous 

Systems

TUE-PM1: 

Ground Truth and 

Testbeds for 

Performance 

Testing 

TUE-PM2: 

An Ontology for 

Robotics 

Science and Systems 

C

1

18:30 - 

Banquet (19:00 –) 

Banquet Speaker: Tom Mitchell 

How does Brain Activity Represent Word 

Meanings?
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 18, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-1334

Lower Tribunal No. 17-2416

________________

Kenneth Wayne Kolb,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction — Petition for Belated Appeal.

Kenneth Wayne Kolb, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Carrol Y. Cherry Eaton (Fort

Lauderdale), Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

SCALES, J.
Petitioner Kenneth Wayne Kolb filed two petitions in the trial court. His first

petition was for a writ of prohibition, which sought to prohibit prison officials from

allegedly retaliating against him for filing grievances at the Dade Correctional

Institution. Kolb had recently been transferred to this Miami-Dade correctional

facility to be closer to his family in advance of his scheduled release from prison,

and Kolb alleged that prison officials intended to transfer him back to a prison

upstate in violation of his constitutional rights.

Kolb’s second petition was for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel

the Miami-Dade County Clerk to process Kolb’s application for a name change,

notwithstanding a Florida statute that conditions such an application on the

restoration of the applicant’s civil rights. § 68.07(3)(l), Fla. Stat. (2016).

The trial court denied both petitions without hearing, rendering its orders on

March 31, 2017. Kolb’s notice of appeal, which appears to relate only to the order

denying his petition for writ of prohibition, was received by prison officials on

May 19, 2017, and forwarded to this Court on May 24, 2017. Kolb concedes that

he filed his appeal after the thirty-day appeal period of Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.110(b), and petitions this Court to accept a belated appeal pursuant to

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

Both of Kolb’s petitions below were civil in nature. Rule 9.141(c)’s belated

appeal procedures relate to criminal proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to grant a

2
belated appeal in a civil proceeding and, consequently, we dismiss Kolb’s petition.

Hollingsworth v. Szczecina, 731 So. 2d 790, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Petition dismissed.

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7727

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRENITA ASHLOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (4:11-cr-00049-RGD-TEM-1; 4:12-cv-00133-RGD)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trenita Ashlock, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont Creighton, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Brian James Samuels, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Jerome 

M. Maiatico, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Trenita Ashlock seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ashlock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT T. McGALLAGHER, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0811-M

 :

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of :

Social Security, :

 :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff's

Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. 2412 be and is hereby GRANTED

and that Plaintiff's attorney, Colin E. Kemmerly, be and is

hereby AWARDED an EAJA attorney's fee in the amount of

$562.50. No costs are taxed.

DONE this 28th day of September, 2005.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00811-M Document 20 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.1

Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
Mississippi Chemical Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-38619) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-36998 and 333-56726) on Form S-8 of Mississippi Chemical Corporation of our report dated August 9, 2002 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Mississippi Chemical Corporation as of June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended June 30, 2002, which report appears in the June 30, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Mississippi Chemical Corporation.

Our report dated August 9, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company's recurring losses from operations and inability to repay the amounts due on November 25, 2002 under a revolving credit facility raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Jackson, Mississippi
September 27, 2002