alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.01



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kamlesh R. Tejwani, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Environmental Power Corporation.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 29, 2005



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Kamlesh Tejwani                       
|Kamlesh R. Tejwani Chief Executive Officer
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-13-00752- CV In re Jam es Barre ntine and P atric ia Barrentine ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B ASTROP CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Filed: Nove mber 27, 2013
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-44306) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8 No.
33-44531) the 1991 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1988 Nonqualified Stock
Option Plan For Non-Employee Directors of Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc., (Form
S-8 No. 333-01759) the Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. Amended and Restated 1995
Incentive Stock Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-62947) of
Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc., and in the related Prospectus of our report
dated January 31, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.
 
                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Houston, Texas
March 5, 1997
2014- 0497.

#### State v. McCoy.

Licking App. No. 14 CA 2. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to supplement, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied as moot.
**EXHIBIT 32.0**

 

# **SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

# ** **

The undersigned hereby certify thatthis report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in thisreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  March 15, 2004 | By:                                    | /s/ Roger E.  Gower |   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                        | Roger E.  Gower                        |
|                        | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                                   |
|                        |                                   |
| Dated:  March 15, 2004 | By:                                    | /s/ Thomas  P. Maun |   |
|                        | Thomas P.  Maun                        |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer               |
|                        | Chief  Accounting Officer              |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sterlyn Avery HEWLETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-4665.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2014.

Decided: April 11, 2014.

Sebastian M. Joy, Joy Law Office, Cat-lettsburg, Kentucky, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Sharon M. Frazier, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sterlyn Avery Hewlett pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and was sentenced to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. In the plea agreement, Hewlett reserved the *216right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle he was driving. Hewlett contends on appeal that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress on the ground that the search was valid under a protective sweep incident to a stop. We affirm.

When considering a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Foster,*634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir.2011). When a suppression motion has been denied by the district court, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. *Id.*A factual finding is clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” *United States v. Harvey,*532 F.3d 326, 336-37 (4th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s ultimate conclusion that the protective search is constitutional is a legal conclusion which we review de novo. *United States v. Griffin,*589 F.3d 148, 151-52 (4th Cir.2009).

With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, the district court’s order, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude Hewlett’s motion to suppress was properly denied for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Hewlett,*No. 3:13-cr-00043-1 (S.D.W.Va. May 3, 2013).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
 

SUITE 9500
 

WASHINGTON, DC 20001
 

October 30, 2009 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 12, 2009 

PLACE:	 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED:	 The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Coal River Mining, LLC, Docket 

No. WEVA 2006-125-R, et al. (Issues include whether the 

Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that a violation of 30 

C.F.R. § 75.340(a) was not attributable to the operator’s 

unwarrantable failure, and whether the Judge erred in reducing the 

penalties proposed by the Secretary of Labor with respect to that 

citation and three orders.) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility 

features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must 

inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 

C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d). 

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.