alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Jirka Rysavy, certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of Gaiam, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

   (a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

   (b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

   (c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

   (a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

   (b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March  1, 2005             |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   |                       |
|   | /s/  Jirka Rysavy          |   |
|   | Jirka  Rysavy              |
|   | Chairman  of the Board and |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer   |

 

----
#### I. I. Stegal and Wife *v.*John Fish's Adm'r.

Executors and Administrators — Pleading—Averment of Blank Amount.

An amended petition in a settlement suit is insufficient wliere it alleges overpayment to certain of the distributees, but leaves tbe amounts in blank, since no relief could be granted tbereon if tbe amended petition .should be taken as confessed.

APPEAL PROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 19, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Robards, the administrator of John Fish, deceased, excepted to the report of the master, fixing the advancements made by the decedent to his children, upon the ground that it was based upon the testimony of Mrs. Fish, who detailed information derived from her deceased husband during their coverture. The deposition of Mrs. Fish' was suppressed, and the cause remanded to the master, to take further proof and to settle the accounts between the administrator and the distributees.

On the 17th of October,' 1870, the master again reported as to the matter of advancements. On the 2d of November, 1870, this report was approved, and a judgment rendered directing the administrator to pay out specific sums to certain of the distributees, and the cause again referred to the master to take‘proof as to the claims of Mrs. West, John F. West and Mrs, Fish,' and for no other purpose. April 20, 1871, the master made his report pursuant to this last order of reference. On the 27th of the same month the case was recommitted with specific instructions, and on the 17th of October, 1871, another report was made. The cause was again remanded without specific instructions.

And on the 26th of October, Stegall and wife filed an amended petition asking to set aside all steps previously taken in the case, *384and to have it settled upon an entirely different basis. They complained that certain of the distributees had been overpaid, but they leave the sums in blank. If their amended petition had been taken for confessed, no relief could have been granted them'. It furnished no basis upon which a judgment could have been rendered; nor did it state any ground authorizing the court to compel a discovery by the administrator or the distributees, to whom) it was alleged improper payments had been made. Further than this the judgment of November 22, 1870, was a final disposition of the question of advancements, and the order to the administrator to pay. out assets in his hands was imperative.

Dunlap, *fo¥ appellants.*

*Hill &*Alcorn> *for appellee.*

It is wholly immaterial whether the master did or did not accept the settlements made by the administrator with the county court. The fact that he did so was reported to the court; his report was confirmed and a judgment based upon it. This judgment was final and can only be annulled, vacated, or modified, in the mode prescribed by law. The amended petition of October 26, 1871, sets up none of the statutory grounds upon which the circuit court could have based this final order. It was, therefore, properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Mary R. Bugg *v.*Alfred Allen.

Husband and Wife — Surety—Subrogation.

Where a surety on a stay bond paid the judgment replevied by the husband and such surety, such payment did not invest the surety with the right' which a judgment plaintiff had against the estate off the. wife ,of the husband.

APPEAL PROM HIOKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 17, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge-Lindsay:

It may be conceded that the unreversed judgment in favor of Jones is (for the purposes of this suit) conclusive as to the liability of Mrs. Bugg’s land to be subjected to the payment of his debt, and that the execution of the injunction bond by Allen suspended the sale the court’s commissioner was about to make.

But it was not the injunction suit that finally saved the land from sale. Jones had the right to resort to his personal judgment against John Bugg, the husband, and it was the payment of this judgment that deprived Jones of the right to sell Mrs. Bugg’s land.

If Bugg had paid the judgment, he would not have been subro-gated to Jones’ rights. He would merely have relieved his wife’s land from' liability.

Allen replevied the personal judgment against the husband and finally paid it. He was compelled to pay the debt, not on account of his suretyship on the injunction bond, but because he replevied the judgment against the husband. This payment gave him- a right of action against his principal in the replevin bond, but it did not invest him with Jones’ rights against the wife, for the obvious reason that Bugg, the principal, would not have been so invested had he paid the debt, instead of leaving his surety fi> pay it.

It is not enough to say that Mrs. Bugg, the debtor of Allen, was benefited by the payment of the personal judgment against her husband.

Allen did not become the husband’s surety at her instance and if he had, she being a *femé covert,*was incapable of binding herself to perform a personal undertaking.

There was no privity between the parties to this action so far as the replevin bond is concerned, and Allen has been compelled to pay *94nothing as surety on the injunction bond. His petition ought therefore to have been dismissed.

*Bradley, for appellant.*

*Bullock, for appellee.*

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

JOSE MANUEL RUVIERA-GONZALEZ 11-00102-002

12026-003

09-29-2011

Pro Se

✔

✔

109 78 months

09-29-2011

03-30-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.03.26 12:03:02 -06'00'

Case 1:11-cr-00102-CG-M Document 135 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         December 16, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 9, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 23 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2015-16, CP2015-20.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Requirements.

[FR Doc. 2014-29376 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1555 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, California, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 1555 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL MICHAEL D. ANDERSON JR. POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, 

5 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cor6 poral Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. 

11 Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<page> 					EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin
Perry, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation,
the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		May 16, 2005
#### Ray et al. *v.*The Indianapolis Insurance Company.

New Trial.—Cause.—That the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to an answer, is not a cause for granting a new trial.

*Corporation.—Estofflel.—A*party who contracts with a corporation, as such, is precluded from questioning the organization of the corporation.

APPEAL from the Marion Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

This action was brought *by the*appellee against the appellants, to foreclose a mortgage executed to it, by the appellants, to secure the payment of a promissory note made by appellant Martin M. Ray to the appellee. The defendants answered; the plaintiff replied; the cause was tried by the court; there was a finding for the plaintiff; .motion for a new trial overruled; and judgment rendered on .the finding.

The errors assigned in this court, stating them in our own order, are, first, the overruling of the demurrers of the defendants to the complaint; second, the sustaining of *the*demurrers of the plaintiff to the several paragraphs of the answer of the defendants; third, the striking out of the paragraphs of the answer; fourth, error of the court in its conclusions of law upon its special findings; fifth, the refusal to grant a new trial.

No particular defect in the complaint is pointed out. It .seems to us to be sufficient.

There is no question in the record relating to the sufficiency of the answers as last amended and filed.

The last answers filed were not stricken out, but were on file when the case was tried.

There was no legal and proper special finding by the court, nor any conclusions of law stated.

The new trial was asked for the reasons, first, that the court erred in sustaining the demurrers to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the answer; second, the court erred in refusing to allow the defendants to prove that the .plaintiff was not organized as a corporation; third, in finding *291too much for the plaintiff; fourth, in its conclusions of law; and, fifth, in rendering judgment for the amount of the finding and costs.

*M. M. Ray, H. C. Ray, W. L. Ray, G. Ji. ¡Foss, B. F. JDavis,*and *J. A. Holman,*for appellants.

*T.*A. *Hendricks, O. B. Hord,*and *A. W. Hendricks, for*appellee.

The first reason assigned is not a cause for granting a new trial. Second, there was ño error in refusing to allow the defendants to prove that the plaintiff had not been organized as a corporation. By making the contract with the company, as a corporation, they .precluded themselves from questioning that fact. 2 Davis Ind. Dig. 191, sec. 27. Third, there is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that the finding was excessive. Fourth,-there were no conclusions of law stated by the court; and if there had been, and they were wrong, this was no reason for a new trial. Fifth, the judgment is in proper form, so far as we can see. The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

The judgment is affirmed, with two per cent, damages and costs, as of the November term, 1871, when it was submitted, the said Martin M. Ray having since then departed this- life.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (the "Companies") for the year
ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

|                                                                         |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|                                                                         |  | 
|/s/J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 22, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     As Independent Public Accountants we hereby consent to the incorporation 
of our reports dated February 11, 1997, appearing on pages 67 and 69 of the 
Annual Report on Form 10-K, into the company's previously filed Registration 
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-60406, 33-57167 and 33-39466) and on Form S-8 
(Nos. 33-45525, 33-50260, 33-45074, 33-52094 and 333-19671). It should be noted 
that we have not audited any financial statements of UtiliCorp United Inc. 
subsequent to December 31, 1996 or performed any audit procedures subsequent 
to the date of our reports.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 14, 1997
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY LEE, AIS # 184070, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0675-CB-M

CHIEF BROWN, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE this 25th day of February, 2010.

 

 s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00675-CB-M Document 3 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00296-CV

GLEN WYLIE, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF HUBBARD,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 47658

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Glen Wylie, Jr., filed motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Wylie no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Dismissal of 

this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise 

be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice
Wylie v. The City of Hubbard Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2013

[CV06]
SIMPLIFIED AND IMPROVED 

MODEL SMOOTHING IN 

REFLECTOMETRY FITTING

Aaron Green- Thomas S. Wootton

Mentor: Brian Maranville
NEUTRON REFLECTOMETRY

• Neutrons are shot at thin films in order to determine structure

• Neutrons are sensitive to different isotopes of elements
MODELS AND FITTING

• Refl1D is the program we use to fit data to models

Non-Smooth Profile created from model Model closely fitted to data points, reflectivity as a function of Q

Data Reflectivity 

Graph Profile Model

Hard to 

Interpret

Easy to 

Interpret
PROFILE OF MODEL TO 

GENERATE FIT

Roughness 

(σ)

The model is composed of 

layers that each have 

thickness (width) and 

roughness (amount of blend 

between layers)

Thickness SLD (ρ) 
MODEL

Silicon, PCBM, P3HT, and Air 

all have different SLD’s

Thickness Roughness
PROBLEM

• Models with layers that are very thin with large roughness are incorrectly calculated 

and smoothed out, which causes fits to be calculated wrong

Roughness 

(σ)

Thickness = 10Å per layer

Roughness = 10Å per layer
SMOOTHING/BLENDING PROCESS

• Use Convolution of Gaussian and Step Function

• Gaussian represents roughness

• Steps represent difference in value of layers

• However, convolutions are very hard on the computer, so we use error 

functions to represent convolutions
STEPS OF MY ALGORITHM

1) Calculate difference (Δ) in SLD of two layers

2) Find roughness (σ) of interface between layers

3) Create error function based on these numbers

1)ff tt =

Δ

ππ ∫0

zz

ee

− tt

σσ 2

^2 dd

t is distance away from interface

Δ

σσ
Result 

(sum of 

interfaces)
Same Model, but with thickness 

of layers decreased from 100Å 

to 10Å

Expected

Mine
OUTCOME: MY ALGORITHM IS

• Faster than previous

• More accurate than previous

• Applicable to many reflectivity situations

• Cell Membranes

• Solar Cells
PROBLEMS

• Strange results in cases where roughness are unequal and large
IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE ISSUES 

(FOR NOW)

• Keep roughness equal in cases with large roughness and small thickness

• When roughness are unequal, roughness should be no more than the length 

of the next layer
THANKS!

• My Mentor, Brian Maranville

• SHIP Directors, Yamali Hernandez and Julie Borchers

• Paul Kienzle, one of the creators of Bumps and Refl1D

• CHRNS and NCNR