alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Continucare Corporation (the“Registrant”); 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-15e and15d-14) for the Registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich 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 effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation.  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over 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 equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date:  September 19, 2005 By:  /s/ Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.   Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.   President and Chief Executive Officer  
1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,921]


Glenshaw Glass Company, Inc. Glenshaw, PA; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of June 11, 2001, the workers requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance, petition TA-W-38,921. The denial notice was signed on May 
15, 2001 and published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2001 (66 FR 
28928).
    The Department has reviewed the request for reconsideration and has 
determined that the Department will examine the petitioner's allegation 
claiming that the parent customer is importing glass containers similar 
to what the subject plant produced and selling the glass containers to 
the subject firm's customer base.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of November 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade, Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31620 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### L. C. FULLER, JR., LUMBER CO., Inc., Appellant, v. Chester Herman ANGLIN, Appellee. L. C. FULLER, JR., LUMBER CO., Inc.*,*Appellant, v. Mrs. Grace ROBBINS, Administratrix of the Estate of Bailey Robbins, De*c*eased, Appellee. L. C. FULLER, JR., LUMBER CO., Inc., Appellant, v. G. C. MILLIGAN and John T. Ridgeway, d.b.a. Milligan & Ridgeway Funeral Home, Appellees.

Nos. 13057-13059.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 30, 1957.

Ortmeyer, Bamberger, Ortmeyer & Foreman, Evansville, Ind., Miller Manier, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

Hooker, Keeble, Dodson & Harris, Nashville,' Tenn., Aaron Brown, Paris, Tenn., S. C. Lewis, N. A. Link, Dover, Tenn., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

.These consolidated appeals grow out of a head-on collision between a trailer truck and a hearse, which occurred in Indiana in 1954. Trial was had jn the Middle District of Tennessee, the resi-denee of appellees, resulting in verdicts 'in their favor against the appeJlant truck owner, a corporation domiciled in Ala'bama/

The appellant complains of the district court’s -failure to grant its. motion to transfer the actions to the Southern District of Indiana in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), and of several alleged errors committed by the court before and during the trial.

The question of whether to transfer the actions to Indiana was one entrusted ,to the district court’s discretion, of which *73there was no abuse under the circumstances disclosed by the record. After careful examination of the other matters raised by able counsel for the appellant, we are unable to conclude that either alone or in combination any of them constituted prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.

The judgments of the district court are accordingly affirmed.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 12

- 00430

- CR

Charles ARRINGTON

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR1663

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The record on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals in the above styled and

numbered cause has been received. The above cause has been set for formal submission ON

BRIEFS ONLY and without additional briefing before this court on March 17, 2015 , before a

panel consisting of Chief Justice Marion, Justice Barnard and Justice Chapa

.

It is so ORDERED on the 24 th day of February , 201 5

.



### PER CURIA M

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001             MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         211,665                 211,665
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,400                  73,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,570                   5,570
<INVENTORY>                                    132,000                 132,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               467,684                 467,684
<PP&E>                                          55,532                  55,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,979                  28,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 515,642                 515,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          477,698                 477,698
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       169,683                 169,683
<OTHER-SE>                                     368,020                 368,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   515,642                 515,642
<SALES>                                      1,505,508               3,292,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,505,508               3,292,069
<CGS>                                          850,947               2,022,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  850,947               2,022,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               534,753               1,192,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,791                  80,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            121,791                  80,904
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,791                  80,904
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01                    0.00





</TABLE>
2014-0584.

#### State v. Carman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 99463, 2013-Ohio-4910. On motion for delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary information extracted from the Financial
Statements of the June 30, 1999 Form 10-Q of Aircraft Income Partners and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,306,548
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,816,060
<PP&E>                                       1,698,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                 535,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,978,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          182,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,796,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,978,870
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,496
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  563,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,071,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,451,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,451,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,451,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edd C. DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10809

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Edd C. Douglas, Springfield, MO, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edd C. Douglas, federal prisoner # 23799-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of his sentence for drug trafficking conspiracy, possession with intent to manufacture and distribute cocaine, money laundering, possession with intent to manufacture and distribute cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base, maintaining a place to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. However, Douglas died during the pen*877deney of this appeal. Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed as moot.

DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Melvin Corey MADDOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON; Fred Shilling; Tracy S. Ray; M. Collins; L. Mullins; B. Owens; V. Phipps; Stanley; H. Smith; R. Kilgore; S. Church; L. Yates; T. McCoy; A. Mullins; J. Rasnick; Garry Kendrick, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-7081.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 10, 2010.

Melvin Corey Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff W. Rosen, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, VA, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Corey Maddox appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Maddox v. Johnson,*No. 7:09-cv-00179-GEC-MFU (W.D.Va. July 30, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Patrick SAINTIL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-6365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 30, 2008.

Patrick Saintil, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Saintil seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saintil has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with *250oral 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.*
Order entered January 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00685-CV

ASSOCIATED AIR CENTER LP F/K/A A LANDMARK AVIATION CO., 

ASSOCIATED AIR CENTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DAE AVIATION HOLDINGS, 

INC. D/B/A DUBAI AEROSPACE, APPELLANTS

V.

TARY NETWORK, LTD.; CITADELLA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LTD., 

APPELLEES

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-01620

ORDER

On December 20, 2013, we ordered Sheretta L. Martin, Official Court Reporter of the 

162nd Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record by DECEMBER 30, 2013 and not sit 

as a court reporter until the record was filed. On December 30, 2013, instead of filing the record, 

she requested an additional five (5) days to file the record because “the final invoice has not been 

paid.” Seven days have passed since the filing of the motion and the record has still not been 

filed. Accordingly, we DENY the motion. Our December 20, 2013 order remains in effect and

Ms. Martin may not sit until the record is filed. 
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Phyllis Lister Brown, Presiding Judge, 162nd Judicial District Court; Sheretta L. 

Martin; and counsel for all parties.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         209,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,000
<INVENTORY>                                     52,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               371,228
<PP&E>                                         683,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 579,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 525,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          581,765
<BONDS>                                         29,666
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,990
<OTHER-SE>                                    (171,347)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   525,074
<SALES>                                      2,509,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,509,022
<CGS>                                        1,574,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,606,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (113,244)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (113,244)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (113,244)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        


</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Austin Powder Company, Docket Nos. CENT 2006-128-M and CENT 2006-159-M.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Austin Powder Company, Docket Nos. CENT 2006-128-M and CENT 2006-159-M.

meeting_092707.pdf

fmshrc092707.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
(function ($, Drupal, drupalSettings) {
  
'use strict';

Drupal.behaviors.qt_accordion = {
  attach: function (context, settings) {
    $(context).find('div.quicktabs-accordion').once('quicktabs-accordion').each(function() {
      var id = $(this).attr('id');
      var qtKey = 'qt_' + this.id.substring(this.id.indexOf('-') +1);
      var options = drupalSettings.quicktabs[qtKey].options;
      $(this).accordion(options);
    });
  }
}

})(jQuery, Drupal, drupalSettings);