alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31(b)****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**     I, Herman F. Dick, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Core Molding Technologies, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     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-15(e) and15d-15(e)) 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 quarterly 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 thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and  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 first fiscal quarter in the case of the quarterly report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     5. 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 the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 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: August 13, 2007               /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.   Herman F. Dick, Jr.   Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and
EX-35.1
AURORA LOAN SERVICES

Owner: None



Depositor: Structured Asset Securities Corporation
Attention: Mortgage Finance LMT 2007-4
745 7th Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10019

Master Servicer: Aurora Loan Services LLC
Michele Olds
10350 Park Meadows Drive
Littleton, CO 80124

Trustee: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Attention: Kimberly J. Wiggins / LMT 2007-4
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Securities Admin



Subject: Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year: 2007
Investor Code: H18
Investor Name: LMT 2007-4

I, Terry Gentry, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan
Services LLC (the "Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year
2007:

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on
the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the reporting period) and of
its performance under the Agreement for such period has been made under my
supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such reporting period.



Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC

By: /s/ Terry L. Gentry
Name: Terry L. Gentry
Title: Managing Director
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4835]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-652 (Review)]


Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide From 
the Netherlands

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission determines, 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
aramid fiber formed of poly para-phenylene terephthalamide from the 
Netherlands would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of material injury to an industry in the United States within a 
reasonably foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Sec. 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner Dennis M. Devaney did not participate in this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on December 1, 1999 (64 FR 
67302) and determined on March 3, 2000 that it would conduct a full 
review (65 FR 13988, March 15, 2000). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on August 21, 2000 (65 
FR 50720). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2001, 
and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear 
in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the 
Secretary of Commerce on February 22, 2001. The views of the Commission 
are contained in USITC Publication 3394 (February 2001), entitled 
Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide from the 
Netherlands: Investigation No. 731-TA-652 (Review).

    Issued: February 21, 2001.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4835 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4828]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee for Injury Prevention and Control: Family and 
Intimate Violence Prevention Subcommittee: Conference Call

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following subcommittee conference call.

    Name: ACIPC Family and Intimate Violence Prevention 
Subcommittee.
    Times and Dates: 1 p.m.-3 p.m., March 12, 2001.
    Place: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 
(NCIPC), Koger Center--Vanderbilt Building, Conference Room 2000, 
2939 Flowers Road South, Atlanta, Georgia 30341.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: To provide and make recommendations to ACIPC and the 
Director, NCIPC, regarding feasible goals for prevention and control 
of family and intimate violence and sexual assault. The Subcommittee 
will make recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives 
and priorities.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The Subcommittee will discuss the FY 
2001 Violence Against Women activities, and NCIPC's Research Agenda.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Ileana Arias, Ph.D., Chief, 
Etiology and Surveillance Branch (Provisional), Division of Violence 
Prevention, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, M/S K60, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770/488-4410.

    This notice is published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due 
to administrative delays.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: February 22, 2001.
John Burckhardt,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office.
[FR Doc. 01-4828 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
[No. 57496-5-I.

Division One.

September 17, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Anthony N. Calderon, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-11678-0, James D. Cayce, J., entered December 23, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20793

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NELSON BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-96-65-2)

July 15, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nelson Brown appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting1 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846.

2 United States v. Harvey

, 897 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied

, 498 U.S. 1003 (1990),

overrul ed on other grounds

, U nited States v. Lambert

, 984 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1993) (en

banc); United States v. Gant , 691 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1982).

3 United States v. Willis

, 38 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 1994), cert

. denied

, 115 S.Ct. 2585

(1995).

2 to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. 1 Brown contends that: (1) the

evi dence demonstrated his actions were committed under duress; (2) the district

court committed plain error in instructing the jury that he had the burden to prove

the affirmative defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence ; (3) the

district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the

government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired to possess

with intent to distribute cocaine base; and (4) the prosecutor’s improper statements

during closing argument substantially affected his right to a fair trial.

Assuming per arguendo that the issue that a preponderance of the evidence

demonstrated that Brown’s actions were committed under duress is cognizable, our

review of the record persuades that Brown did not demonstrate at trial that he acted

under duress. 2 The district court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury

on Brown’s duress defense. 3 The evidence before the jury was sufficient to support4 United States v. Stephens

, 964 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Maltos

, 985

F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Ramirez , 963 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied

, 506 U.S. 944 (1992).

5 United States v. Andrews

, 22 F.3d 1328 (5th cir.), cert

. denied

, 513 U.S. 941 (1994).

3 the con viction for conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute. 4

Finally, we conclude that Brown’s right to a fair trial was not substantially affected

by comme nts by the prosecutor during closing argument. 5 The challenged

comments by the prosecutor, albeit inappropriate, did n ot rise to the level of

tainting the trial.

The convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Richard T. Schumacher, President and Chief Executive Officer ofPressure BioSciences, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Pressure BioSciences,Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:

 

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

 

b) (Omitted)

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of 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 data; 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: November 22, 2004

 
| /s/ Richard T. Schumacher                                     |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Richard T. Schumacher                                   |
| Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer       |
| (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
|                 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 |
|----------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| Open Bank Assistance | 1    | 3    | 8    | 3    | 2    | 4    | 7    | 19   | 79   | 1    | 1    | 3    |
| Whole Bank P&A   | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 19   | 69   | 42   | 43   | 24   |
| Other P&As       | 7    | 5    | 27   | 36   | 62   | 87   | 98   | 114  | 95   | 132  | 105  | 79   |
| Deposit Transfers    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 2    | 12   | 7    | 19   | 40   | 30   | 23   | 12   | 17   |
| Deposit Payoffs      | 3    | 2    | 7    | 7    | 4    | 22   | 21   | 11   | 6    | 9    | 8    | 4    |
| Totals               | 11   | 10   | 42   | 48   | 80   | 120  | 145  | 203  | 279  | 207  | 169  | 127  |

|                 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|----------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| Open Bank Assistance | 2    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| Whole Bank P&A   | 5    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 3    | 2    | 0    | 0    |
| Other P&As       | 90   | 36   | 13   | 6    | 6    | 1    | 3    | 8    | 4    | 2    | 6    | 3    |
| Deposit Transfers    | 14   | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| Deposit Payoffs      | 11   | 5    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 5    | 0    |
| Totals               | 122  | 41   | 13   | 6    | 6    | 1    | 3    | 8    | 7    | 4    | 11   | 3    |

Back to Chart
2008-1464.

#### State ex rel. Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

In Mandamus. On request for oral argument. Request denied.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
2009-1381.

#### Ryder v. McGlone’s Rentals.

Crawford App. No. 3-09-02, 2009-Ohio-2820.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
#### Edward James EGAN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7302.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.

Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward James Egan, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. *7251595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Egan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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.*
美国农业部食品安全检验局

什么是李斯特氏菌?

单核细胞增多性李斯特氏菌(李斯特氏菌)是一种细菌,会污染食品,并会导致严重感染,称为李

斯特菌病。据估计,每年有1600人感染李斯特菌病,约260人死亡。孕妇和新生儿、65岁以上的成年

人以及免疫系统较弱的人最容易感染致病。

为什么李斯特氏菌污染是零售环节关注的问题?

李斯特氏菌可寄生在食品生产环境和冷藏区域。李斯特氏菌从环境、设备、员工或生鲜食品上的转移是零

售熟食店尤其需要关注的危害。零售环节的食品、环境、食品设备和员工行为都可能导致李斯特氏菌污

染。李斯特氏菌污染会导致熟食肉类和家禽产品成为掺杂品,无法安全食用。

零售商可以采取哪些措施控制零售环节的李斯特氏菌?

清除零售熟食店中的明显

掺杂产品(如:产品上的

毛发或昆虫等)。

消除熟食区或储藏区可能导致产品掺杂的设施条件(如:

滴落到暴露产品上的冷凝水、建筑灰尘或损坏的设备)。

确保制备、包装和盛放熟食肉类和家禽产品的

地方不存在不卫生条件(如:苍蝇、鼠粪、霉

菌或肮脏的表面)。

不要在生鲜产品附近或直接毗邻生鲜产

品的地方制备、盛放或储存熟食肉类或

家禽产品。

所有打开的熟食肉类或家禽产

品不用时应加盖、包裹或以其

他方式保护,防止交叉污染。

8确保员工在处理熟食产品前,适

当洗手并戴上一次性手套。

对用于加工熟食产品

的设备至少每 4 小时

进行一次清洁和消

毒。

熟食肉类或家禽产

品用后(如:切

片)立即冷藏。

扫描二维码查阅《零售环节李斯特氏

菌指南》。

4

1 2

3

5 6 7

控制熟食店里的单核细胞增多性李

斯特氏菌(李斯特氏菌)

保护您的客户免受熟食产品中潜在的李斯特氏菌污染。
美国农业部是平等机会的提供者、雇主和贷款人。 2023年8月
#### The State (Samuel Grant, Prosecutor,) *vs.*John V. Hull, Collector of Lambertville.

That part of tho bridge across the Delaware at Lambertville, which is within the limits of that town, is liable to taxation;, but that part which, is not within those limits is not.

The assessor of the town of Lambertville assessed the bridge over the Delaware at Lambertville after it was sold from the incorporated company formerly owning it, by receivers appointed by the chancellor, and purchased by individual owners, and valued it. at half the value of ¡the whole structure, as ascertained by - the sale. The limits of the town of Lambertville are defined, in .the charter of the town, as extending to. low water mark. of the river. The owner of the bridge prosecuted this *certiorari;bo*the legality of the assessment.

Argued, before Justices Elmer, Potts, and Vredenburgh,

by *Wilson,*for the prosecutor, and *Halsted, contra.*

Elmer, J.

This *certiorari*is brought to determine the legality of the tax assessed by the assessor of the town of Lambertville, in the county of Hunterdon, on the bridge formerly belonging to the New Hope Delaware Bridge Company, which it appears has been sold, and beeome *562the property of the prosecutor. It was insisted, in the first place, that the prosecutor is the purchaser of the franchises of the company, as well as of the bridge itself, and that the value of the bridge, as stock in his hands, is taxable only as personal property in the township or city where he resides. This objection is sufficiently answered by the fact, that the bridge itself is taxed to an individual, who is admitted-to be the owner, and it does not appear how' he holds it. So far as appears, it is rightly taxed as real estate owned by an individual, the right of the stock company which once owned it having been extinguished.

It was'also urged that the bridge is not within the limits of the town of Lambertville, and is therefore not subject to taxation. It appears, however, that the abutment on the shore of New Jersey, and the lot on which it stands, is within the limits of the town, as defined in the act of incorporation, passed in 1849, *Pamph L.*247, and is therefore liable to be taxed. The assessment, as made upon one half of the bridge, extending to the middle of the river, cannot be sustained. That part of it which is not within the limits of Lambertville is not within any county or township of the state, as now defined. There' not being sufficient evidence before the court to enable us to ascertain precisely how much of the structure is within the limits of the town, or what is the actual value of the lot and of the structure upon it, as it now stands, for the purposes of the bridge, unless the parties can agree, a commissioner must be appointed to make an examination and valuation of the property, that the tax may be reduced accordingly.

Justices Potts ánd Yeedeneutígh: concurred.
#### Kevin S. JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-8053.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Kevin S. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his request for mandamus relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jackson v. Cir. Ct. of Howard Cnty.,*No. l:13-cv-03219-RDB (D.Md. Nov. 4, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *246the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*