alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I Samir T. Badawi, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Gundle/SLTEnvironmental, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred 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 materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or person’s performing the equivalentfunction):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. Date March 12, 2004 /S/ Samir T. BadawiSamir T. BadawiPresident &Chief Executive Officer
#### Christopher O’SHEA; Gisele Rogers; Jeff Adams, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EPSON AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; Epson Accessories, Inc., a California corporation; Seiko Epson Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-57105.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. B, 2013.

Filed April 1, 2014.

Catherine A. Conway, Esquire, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rex S. Heinke, Jessica Weisel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, William Stoner, Esquire, Yuhl Stoner Carr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Eric Francis Yuhl, Esquire, Yuhl Carr, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Ryan Seth Goldstein, Shon Morgan, Valerie Roddy, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before; PREGERSON, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s partial summary judgment in favor of Epson America Inc., Epson Accessories, Inc., and Seiko Epson Corporation (collectively, “Epson”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment. *SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc.,*729 F.3d 1248, 1255 (9th Cir.2013). “Summary judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record.” *Crowley v. Nev. ex rel. Nev. Sec’y of State,*678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir.2012).

Plaintiffs allege that Epson failed to disclose material information about Epson inkjet printers and ink cartridges. On its website, Epson discloses that it tests ink cartridges in accordance with industry standards. The website also discloses detailed information about how Epson calculates its ink cartridge testing metric (ink yield) and states that no single standard duplicates a customer’s actual printer usage.

*606Under California law, a plaintiff alleging fraud by omission must establish actual reliance by demonstrating “that had the omitted information been disclosed, [he or she] would have been aware of it and behaved differently.” *Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5*Cal.4th 1082, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 858 P.2d 568, 574 (1993). Here, Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate actual reliance because none of the Plaintiffs read Epson’s disclosures

Because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate actual reliance, Plaintiffs’ omission-based claims fail.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### HOPPE et al. v. BENTLEY.

No. 23911.

Jan. 29, 1935.

Edwards & Robinson, Leo G. Mann, and C. J. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.

W, R. Withington, for defendant in error.

PER OURIAM.

In this action the plaintiff in error H. H. Hoppe, July 3, 1930, secured a judgment against the defendant in error, Bentley, et al., quieting- his tax title to lots 35 and 36, block 7, Carney Heights addition to Oklahoma City, Okla.

April 23, 1931, Bentley filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which motion, January 23, 1932, was sustained and an order made vacating the judgment. Hoppe excepted and gave notice of' appeal.

The record and evidence established that at the date of the tax deed, J. “W.” Bentley owned the lots, and that this motion was based upon section 1S9, O. S. 1931, and that the action by Hoppe was against J. “W.” Bentley in the name of J.“N.” Bentley, his name so appearing in the recorded deed. It is. clear that Hoppe brought his action against .the grantee in the deed, and that was J. W. Bentley.

Plaintiff in error, January 25, 1932, filed a motion for new trial of the order vacating the judgment, which was overruled January 29, 1932, notice of appeal given, time granted and extended to make and serve case-made, and the appeal filed in the Supreme Court July 27, 1932, four days after the expiration of six months from the date of the order vacating the judgment quieting title.

The motion for new trial was unauthorized upon the proceedings here involved, and the order thereon did not fix the date from which to calculate the time to appeal. Fliedner v. Hinchee, 157 Okla. 90, 11 P. (2d) 110; Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762; Barfield Pet. Co. v. Pickering Lbr. Co., 137 Okla. 151, 278 P. 391; White v. Security Nat. Bank, 145 Okla. 36, 291 P. 965; Finch v. Smith, 166 Okla. 68, 26 P. (2d) 750.

The appeal not having been taken within six months from the rendition of the order appealed from, this court acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal, and, therefore, the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys James S. Arnote, Chas. H. Hudson, and Chas. R. Freeman, in the preparation of this opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. James S. Arnote, and approved by Mr. Ohas. H. Hudson and Mr. Chas. R. Freeman, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration by a majority of the court, this opinion' was adopted.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc.

Subsidiary List:

GSE International, Inc.
GSE Lining Technology, Inc.
GSE Foreign Sales Ltd.
GSE Clay Lining Technology Co.
GSE Lining Technology Pte. Ltd.
GSE Lining Technology GmbH
GSE Lining Technology Pty Ltd.
GSE(UK) Ltd.
GSE Lining Technology Limited
Gundle Environmental Ltd.
SGS Geosystems Limited
SGS Holdings Limited
Geoplastics Gesellschaft Fur Abdichtungssysteme mbH
Gundle GmbH
Hyma/GSE Lining Technology Co.
Hyme/GSE Manufacturing Co.
GSE Lining Technology Company Limited
GSE Gulf Offshore Ltd.
GSE Lining Technology S.L.
GSE Gulf FZE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0512

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

CLOVIS GENO,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

This cause, which was previously classified for submission on briefs to a five-justice 

panel, is hereby reclassified for submission to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable David Cybulski, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 3 2024

07/03/2024

Case Number: DA 21-0512
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3496 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to expand the funding 

authority for renovating, constructing, and expanding certain facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2021 

Mr. GALLEGO (for himself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to expand the funding authority for renovating, constructing, 

and expanding certain facilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Indian Health 

5 Providers Facilities Improvement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3496 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR REN2 OVATING, CONSTRUCTING, AND EXPANDING 

3 CERTAIN FACILITIES. 

4 Section 509 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

5 Act (25 U.S.C. 1659) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘minor’’ before ‘‘renovations’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘, to assist’’ and all that follows 

9 through ‘‘standards’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

 Decided: September 22, 2014

S14A1084. HARRIS, EXECUTRIX v. O’ZELL 

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule 59.

All the Justices concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 11, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1093

Lower Tribunal No. 21-39718 SP

________________

MGA Insurance Company, Inc.,

Appellant,

vs.

New Vista Diagnostic Imaging Services, LLC, 

a/a/o Hector Yaque,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for MiamiDade County, Ayana Harris, Judge.

Dutton Law Group, P.A., and Rebecca Delaney, Scott W. Dutton and 

Christopher S. Dutton (Tampa), for appellant.

Douglas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Port Royal Prop., LLC v. Woodson Elec. Sols., Inc., 305 

So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

transfer venue under section 47.122 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); 

Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“When venue 

is proper in more than one county, the choice rests with the plaintiff and 

should not be disturbed without a showing of substantial inconvenience or 

the likelihood of injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Gov’t Employees Ins. 

Co. v. Burns, 672 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“[I]n order to 

successfully challenge that selection, the burden is upon the defendant to 

show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a 

change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses.”); R.J. Reynolds 

Tobacco Co. v. Mooney, 147 So. 3d 42, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[I]n order 

for a court to consider the convenience of the witnesses, the court must know 

who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony.” (quoting 

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So. 2d 1377, 1379 (Fla. 

1st DCA 1997))); R.C. Storage One, Inc. v. Strand Realty, Inc., 714 So. 2d 

634, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (noting affidavits in support of appellant’s 

motion to transfer venue were insufficient as they were “little more than a 

laundry list of witness, their places of residence and the conclusory 
3

statement that it would be inconvenient for them to travel to [another 

county]”).
#### Brandon ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher McKENZIE, CO II; Michael J. Stouffer, Commissioner; John Rowley, Former Warden; Justin Adam, CO II; Bradley Wilt, Lt.; Thomas Dorcun, CO II; John Doe 1; John Doe 2, CO II, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-7194.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2014.

Decided: April 15, 2014.

Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Do-rianne Avery Meloy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Roberts appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Roberts v. McKenzie,*No. 8:12-cv-02474-AW, 2013 WL 3179102 (D.Md. June 20, 2013). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           58586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   126921
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     880275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1076370
<PP&E>                                          105740
<DEPRECIATION>                                   38923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1143187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           844631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9991
<OTHER-SE>                                     (266556)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1143187
<SALES>                                        2562892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2562892
<CGS>                                          2290501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2586933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                296432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (24727)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (24727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (24727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.002)
        

</TABLE>
2014-0306.

#### Culberson v. State.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Katrina Culberson. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.37

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$70,000.00                                          Dated: March 25, 1997


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned ("Maker") hereby promises
to pay to the order of Fernando Schechter ("Lender"), at an address in Israel
provided by the Lender, upon June 25, 1997, the principal sum of SEVENTY
THOUSAND ($70,000.00) DOLLARS AND 00/100. Interest shall accrue from the date
hereof at the rate of twelve percent per annum (or at the highest rate permitted
by law, if lower) on the unpaid principal balance from time to time outstanding.

                  Payment of the principal of, and interest on, this Note shall
be payable at the aforesaid address in the lawful money of the United States of
America, or at such other place as the holder of this Note shall have designated
to the Maker in writing.

                  Maker and endorsers severally waive presentment, protest,
demand, and notice of protest, of demand and of dishonor and of nonpayment of
this Note and expressly agree that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be
extended from time to time by Lender without in any way affecting the liability
of Maker and endorsers hereof.

                  This Note will in all respects be governed by and construed in
accordance with the New York Uniform Commercial Code.

                  This Note and its provisions shall inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon, the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the Maker and
the Lender.


                                                 ROYAL CANADIAN FOODS CORP.


                                                 By:
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Sheldon Golumbia, President
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

May 11, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2015

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

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

session: Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Company,

Docket No. LAKE 2009-570. (Issues include whether the 

safeguard notice in question as modified is valid.)

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: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
#### Brandon Scott LAVERGNE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Laincy Vasseur MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-30228

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 8, 2014.

Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant Brandon Scott Lavergne’s claims as frivolous is AFFIRMED. *See Ali v. Higgs,*892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir.1990).

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9675-9676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3410]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-185, MM Docket No. 97-188, RM-9137]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Walnut Grove, MS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 9676]]


ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants a Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
Colon Johnston directed to the Report and Order in this proceeding to 
the extent of allotting Channel 244C2 to Walnut Grove, Mississippi. The 
Report and Order had dismissed this proposal. See 63 FR 26993, May 15, 
1998. The reference coordinates for the Channel 244C2 allotment at 
Walnut Grove, Mississippi, are 32-42-50 and 89-23-48. With this action, 
the proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective March 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 97-188. Adopted January 
24, 2001, and released January 26, 2001. The full text of this decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center at Portals 11, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3805, 1231 M Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.


    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR Part 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Mississippi, is 
amended by adding Walnut Grove, 244C2.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-3410 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
Exhibit 99.2

In connection with the Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam Debard, Treasurer, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

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

(2)  The Information contained in the Report fairly represents,
     in all material aspects, the financial condition and result of
     operations on the Company.


                                         By: /s/Adam Debard
                                         Adam Debard, Treasurer