alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1. | The Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April 27, 2010 | /s/ Lee W. Hendrickson                                                                Lee W. HendricksonChief Financial Officer |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NABISCO HOLDINGS CORP., WHICH WERE FILED
WITH SEC FORM 10-K, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000932130
<NAME> NABISCO HOLDINGS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      521
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,599
<PP&E>                                           5,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,713)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,650
<BONDS>                                          4,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,127
<SALES>                                          8,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,734
<CGS>                                            4,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    724
<INCOME-TAX>                                       293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                431
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (26)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51
        

</TABLE>
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-1996
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1995
[CASH]                                           2,385
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                   24,068
[ALLOWANCES]                                     (391)
[INVENTORY]                                      5,889
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                38,172
[PP&E]                                         210,400
[DEPRECIATION]                               (118,128)
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 130,466
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                           24,702
[BONDS]                                         32,714
[COMMON]                                         8,803
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[OTHER-SE]                                      49,012
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   130,466
[SALES]                                         55,562
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                55,562
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   49,755
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                 790
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                    469
[INCOME-TAX]                                       195
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                274
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                       274
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .03
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .03
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Salim Ghafari, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global  Environmental
Energy Corp.

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  registrant'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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  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
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant'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 registrant's internal controls.


Date:  April 21, 2005

By:/s/Salim Ghafari
-----------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1615 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1615

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
        To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gas Stove Protection and Freedom 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer 
        Product Safety Commission.
            (2) Gas stove.--The term ``gas stove'' means any gas range, 
        gas stove, or household cooking gas appliance that meets the 
        standard set forth in American National Standards Institute 
        (ANSI) Z21.1/ CSA Z21.1 or any successor standard.
            (3) Substantially increase the average price of gas 
        stoves.--The term ``substantially increase the average price of 
        gas stoves'' means that the average price of a gas stove, 
        annualized over its expected life, would likely be 
        substantially higher than the average spending by United States 
        homeowners on cooking stoves and ovens based on the most recent 
        data for consumer expenditures reported by the Bureau of Labor 
        Statistics.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CPSC BANNING GAS STOVES.

    No Federal funds may be used by the Commission to regulate a gas 
stove as a banned hazardous product under section 8 of the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057) or to impose or enforce any 
consumer product safety standard or rule on gas stoves under section 7 
or 9 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 or 2058) that would otherwise result 
in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas stoves in the United States, 
would otherwise result in the unavailability in the United States of a 
type (or class) of product based on the type of fuel the product 
consumes, or would otherwise substantially increase the average price 
of gas stoves in the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1615

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

        To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves.
```
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Measure Aggregate Emissions in the CBRS Band in Always-On DPAs”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 1 of 2

HOW TO USE THE NASCTN COMMENT MATRIX if you are the coordinating organization: 

Use this form to provide comments to NASCTN. Complete the header and footer, columns 2-7:

Column 1 Number the comments sequentially as they are added by each contributor.

Column 2 Enter the Organization, name, phone number, and email address for each contributor

Columns 3, 4, & 5 Enter the appropriate information for each comment. Leave columns 4 & 5 blank for general comments that apply to the entire document.

Column 6 Enter comment type (C, S, or A). 

(C) Critical: Critical comments apply to situations where the document violates established policy, guidance, or directives. The justification for critical 

comments MUST identify violations of law or contradictions of Executive Branch or Federal Agency policy; unnecessary risks to safety, life, limb, or 

materiel; waste or abuse of appropriations; or imposition of an unreasonable burden on an organization’s resources. 

(S) Substantive: Make a substantive comment if a part of the document seems unnecessary, incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other 

sections, or if you disagree with the proposed responsibilities, requirements, or procedures. 

(A) Administrative: An administrative comment concerns non-substantive aspects of an issuance, such as dates of reference, organizational symbols, 

format, and grammar.

Column 7 Place only one comment per row. Enter your comment, recommended changes, and justification in the area provided. If any material is sensitive, 

proprietary, or requires special handing, contact the NASCTN Program Manager for guidance on marking and handling the comment matrix. 

NASCTN Adjudication 

Consolidate comments from all contributors and adjudicate them. Remove column 2 to maintain anonymity of contributors prior to posting to the NASCTN portal page 

(https://www.nist.gov/ctl/national-advanced-spectrum-and-communications-test-network-nasctn). Set header and footer as appropriate. Complete information in column 8 & 9: 

Column 8 Enter your resolution and/or justification. Include any related communications with the contributing organization. You MUST 

provide convincing support for rejecting critical comments.

Column 9 Enter whether you accepted (A), rejected (R), or partially accepted (P) the comment. Your justification in column 8 must be 

consistent with this entry.
UNCLASSIFIED

COMMENTS MATRIX FOR NASCTN TEST PLAN, “Measure Aggregate Emissions in the CBRS Band in Always-On DPAs”

Commenter Area NASCTN Adjudication Area

#

ORGANIZATION &

POC Name, Phone, and 

E-mail

Line 

Number Page Para Comment Type Comments and Justification Resolution A/R/P

UNCLASSIFIED Page 2 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alan
 Gold, certify that:1.
I have
 reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of U.S. Neurosurgical, 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.
I am
 responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
 procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-15e) for the
 registrant and I have:a)
designed
 such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
 relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
 known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period
 in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
evaluated
 the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
 of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
 (the Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in
 this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
 disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
 Evaluation Date;5.
I have
 disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors
 and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
 performing the equivalent function):a)
all
 significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
 which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
 summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
 auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud,
 whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
 a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and6.
I have
 indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant
 changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
 affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation,
 including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
 material weaknesses.  Date: March
 30, 2009
/s/ Alan
 GoldAlan GoldPresident
#### THE STATE ex rel. MILLER v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this ease is reversed on the authority of State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. *—Eon. D. D. Fisher,*Judge.

Reversed.

*C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*A. A. Paxson*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Relator sues for himself and one William Fuchs. He was appointed a patrolman on January 7, 1880, for a term of four years, which he fully served, and thereafter was permitted to hold over until October 17, 1895, and was out until January 28, 1896, when he was reinstated and resigned on the same day. He claims salary from October 17, 1895, until January 28, 1896, amounting to $280.30.

William Fuchs was appointed a patrolman on February 1, 1887, for a term of four years, which he fully served, and was thereafter permitted to hold over until October 17, 1895, when he was dropped. He claims salary for an alleged unexpired term, by implication,from October 17, 1895, to February 1, 1899, amounting to $3,287.78. The circuit court awarded them a peremptory writ as prayed, and the defendants appealed.

The judgment of the circuit court was erroneous. Both claimants were holdovers when they were dropped, *406and were subject to removal at the pleasure of the board. [State ex rel. v. Hawes, p. 360, ante.]

The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, reversed, and the writ quashed. .

All concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH DWAYNE LOCKLEAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00044-BR-1) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Dwayne Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent Locklear’s motion could have been construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), relief would not be warranted because the decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not retroactively applicable on collateral review. SeeUnited States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Kenneth Dwayne Locklear seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “place holder motion” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying relief. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Locklear has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and- 3 - dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ADVANCING METROLOGY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT AND COMPLIANCE IN CENTRAL 

AMERICA AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

(ACRONYM: M4EE- METROLOGY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY)

BENEFICIARY COUNTRIES: Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Nicaragua, Panama

PROJECT DURATION (M4EE): November 2016 - November 2020

GOAL: To contribute to a sustainable energy policy development in the context of the Central America 

Integration System (SICA)

PURPOSE: To strengthen capabilities of government officials and technical stakeholders in SICA Member States 

to perform energy efficiency measurement and compliance assessments in equipment and appliances.

DESCRIPTION:

In 2016, the SICA Member States developed the Central American Technical Regulation (RTCA) on energy 

efficiency, which establishes minimum energy performance standards (MEPS), testing methods, and 

performance labels for household appliances and equipment, such as lighting fixtures, refrigerators, air 

conditioners, and motors. The RTCA is a direct response of SICA member states to support energy efficiency 

and conservation in the region. Once the energy efficiency RTCA is approved by the energy ministries of the 

ten SICA member states, it will become mandatory.

The M4EE project submitted herein will contribute to the implementation of the energy efficiency RTCA 

through training on measurement science in support of compliance and testing to high-ranking government 

officials and technical stakeholders engaged in the implementation and enforcement of national policies, laws 

and regulations on energy efficiency in Central America and Dominican Republic. In this regard, the technical 

support in measurement sciences (i.e., metrology) provided the U.S. National Institute of Technology and 

Standards’ will play a vital role as it will provide tools to government officials and technical stakeholders to 

design execute and assess energy efficiency standards, technologies and practices.

Training to be delivered will include knowledge sharing, best practices, technical exchanges and regional 

cooperation. Further, the proposed project will raise awareness among high-ranking government officials and 

technical experts with regard to the importance of metrology in augmenting pollution mitigation efforts. 

Ultimately, the project will help to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable 

low carbon future in Central America and Dominican Republic.
Order entered October 24, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00344-CV

TONYA TUCKER AND DEBORAH TUCKER, Appellants

V.

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. TX-11-30967

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ October 20, 2017 unopposed motion to extend time to file 

appellants’ brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellants’ brief shall be filed by November 22, 

2017. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE