alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5347. Reimbursement to school districts for educating non-resident students

Any school district educating Indian students who are members of recognized Indian tribes, who do not normally reside in the State in which such school district is located, and who are residing in Federal boarding facilities for the purposes of attending public schools within such district may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, be reimbursed by him for the full per capita costs of educating such Indian students.

(Apr. 16, 1934, ch. 147, §6, as added Pub. L. 93–638, title II, §202, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2214.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 457 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Thomas R. Moyes,certify that:

 

1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for theyear ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) of MediCor Ltd. (the “Company”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MediCor.

 
| Date:  September 28, 2005 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
|                           | /s/  Thomas R. Moyes |   |
|                           | Thomas  R. Moyes |
|                           | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515. License no.
Name/address
Date reissued003772NF
A.T.I., U.S.A., Inc., 1201 Corbin Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07201
September 6, 2004.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 04-22518 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                (In thousands)


                                        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  Quarter Ended                     Two Quarters Ended
                                                         --------------------------------    --------------------------------
                                                            July 14,          July 13,          July 14,          July 13,
                                                              1996              1997              1996              1997
                                                         --------------    --------------    --------------    --------------
<S>                                                        <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Primary earnings per share:
  Weighted average number of shares outstanding......            63,648            65,724            61,848            65,145
  Dilutive effect of common stock options
     and warrants....................................             3,483             1,724             3,675             2,595
                                                         --------------    --------------    --------------    --------------
  Adjusted primary weighted average number of
     common and equivalent shares outstanding........            67,131            67,449            65,523            67,740
                                                         ==============    ==============    ==============    ==============
Fully diluted earnings per share:
  Weighted average number of shares outstanding......            63,648            65,724            61,848            65,145
  Dilutive effect of common stock options,
     warrants and convertible subordinated
     debentures......................................             3,483             6,355             3,675             7,226
                                                         --------------    --------------    --------------    --------------
  Adjusted fully diluted weighted average number
     of common and equivalent shares outstanding.....            67,131            72,079            65,523            72,371
                                                         ==============    ==============    ==============    ==============
</TABLE>

Note:  For purposes of calculating fully diluted earnings per share for the
quarter and two quarters ended July 13, 1997, interest expense, net of taxes of
$2.1 million and $4.9 million, respectively, is added to net income.
### §677h. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 27, 1954, ch. 1009, §9, 68 Stat. 869, which related to the sale or other disposition of certain described lands, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-21784-GAYLES/LOUIS

AUGUSTINO SANTIAGO, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’, Augustino Santiago, Lilly Leyva, 

Guillermo Creamer, and Maria Aceituno, Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the 

“Motion”) [ECF No. 61]. The Court has considered the Motion and the record, heard oral argument 

on the Motion, and is otherwise fully advised. Based thereon, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs, [ECF No. 61], is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ counsel is awarded a fee consisting of onethird of the gross common fund, which totals $616,666.67, and $17,655.30 in litigation costs, for 

which sum let execution issue. Additionally, $7,000 shall be awarded to each of the four named 

Plaintiffs from the common fund.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of April, 2022.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-21784-DPG Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2022 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Linden Boyne, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Innovate Oncology,
      Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 for the registrant and
      have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information relating to the registrant, including its
            consolidated 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
            and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
            of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent functions) :

      a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            control which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls.

6.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
      quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
      controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
      controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
      any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
      material weaknesses.

Date: May 15, 2006

By: /s/ Linden Boyne
-----------------------------
Linden Boyne
CEO & Director
(Chief Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthome Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901**Novernb~r** 23, 2010 Stephen B. Etsitty Executive Director Navajo NationEnvironmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 339 Window Rock, Navajo Nation (AZ) 86515

Re: Request for Update in re: Public Workshops and Hearings on and Near the Navajo Nation, and the Amendment(s) to US EPA Proposed Rule for BART FIP for FCPP

Dear Mr. Etsitty: Thank you for your letter dated November 19,2010requesting additional information regarding the public hearings for ourproposed BARTDetermination for the Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP) and the timeframe for revisions to ourproposal. As you are know, ArizonaPublic Service (APS) recently announced its intention to retire Units 1 - 3 and acquire the share ofUnits 4 and 5 currently owned by Southern California Edison. On November 9, 2010, APS discussed withEPA its alternative BARTproposal involving the retirement ofUnits 1 - 3 and the installation ofselective catalytic reduction (SCR) onUnits4 and 5. APS plans to submitthis proposal to EPA shortly. We will make APS's submission available inthe docket for ourproposed rulemaking once we receive it. In orderto provide adequate time and opportunities to EPA and the public to review the alternative proposal, we have extended the public commentperiod to March 18, 2011 and postponed the open houses and public hearings that were scheduled for the week ofDecember 6, 2010. Following ourreview ofAPS's alternative, we may publish in the Federal Register a supplementto our original BARTproposal. We pLan to complete our analysis ofAPS's alternative proposal in time to provide an adequate notice and comment period priorto March 18, 2011. This includes reschedulingthe open houses and public hearings to receive comments on our original and supplemental proposals prior to the close ofthe commentperiod at two locations on the Navajo Nation and two locations in other affected areas. We hope the additional timewill aLso provide opportunities for continued dialogue on this proposed rule with the Navajo NationEPA and for government-to-governmentconsultations as requested by the Navajo Nation.

Printed on Ruycled PaperPlease contact Colleen McKaughan at (520) 498-0118 ifyou have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan Director, Air Division
#### Jesse J. Temerson, Respondent, v. Joseph Lieberman et al., Doing Business under the Name of Advance Fireproof Storage Warehouse Co., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Action to recover damages for conversion by defendants of 518 bags of sugar stored in their warehouse by plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. Reduction in the amount of the judgment is not warranted. Although the damages awarded exceed the value of the sugar at the time of its conversion by defendants, this excess is approximately equal to the amount of interest which should have been allowed plaintiff, but was erroneously withheld, on the value of the sugar from time of conversion to date of judgment, *(Wilson*v. *City of Troy,*135 1ST. Y. 96, 104-105; *White*v. *Wilier,*78 H. Y. 393.) Present— Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.**§ **1350)**     The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of ARRIS Group, Inc., certifies that to thebest of his knowledge the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the periodended December 31, 2007, whichaccompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the annual report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ARRIS Group, Inc. atthe dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any otherpurpose.     Dated this 29th day of February, 2008.                                                                   /s/ DAVID B. POTTS   David B. Potts   Executive Vice President,
#### § 3177.3 Scope.

This subpart is applicable to disposal of produced water from completed wells on Federal and Indian (except Osage) oil and gas leases. It does not apply to approval of disposal facilities on lands other than Federal and Indian lands. Separate approval under this subpart is not required if the method of disposal has been covered under an enhanced recovery project approved by the authorized officer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,784
<SECURITIES>                                    11,964
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                       365
<INVENTORY>                                      5,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,086
<PP&E>                                           6,347
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,907
<SALES>                                          9,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,091
<CGS>                                            3,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    739
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (6)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                733
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
#### § 4.1185 Computation of time for decision.

In computing the 30-day time period for administrative decision, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, Federal legal holidays, and other nonbusiness days shall be excluded in the computation.
#### Sophie Hodge, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Hodge, Deceased, Appellant, v. Frederic E. Lyford, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 776.]
> *Page Update: June 3, 2004usdoj/jmd/oarm/kcs*
Served : Jun e 23 , 201 0 UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O F TH E SECRETAR Y '*'*a5f» ' WASHINGTON , D.C .



### MOKULEL E FLIGH T SERVICE , INC . NOTIC E O F REGISTRATIO N O F TRAD E NAM E O n Ma y 25 , 2010 , Mokulel e Flight Service , Inc . ("Mokulele") , d^/ aMokulel e Ai r d^/ aMokulel e Airline s d/b/aMokulel e Express , aU.S . certificate d ai r carrier, ^ requeste d tha

t th e Department registe r th e trad e name "golMokulele " fo r us e in certai n o f

it s ai r transportatio n operations . Par t 21 5 (1 4 CFRPar

t 215 ) o f th e Department' s regulation s provide s tha t any ai r carrier wishin g t o us e a n alternativ e trad e name mus t first registe r tha t name wit

h th e Department . Th e rul e furthe r state s tha t th e Departmen t

ma y registe r suc h trad e name afte

r th e ai r carrie r give s notificatio n to similarl y name dai r

carrier s o f

th e propose d us e o f

th e trad e name . Mokulel e state s tha t Mes a Airlines , Inc . ("Mesa") , i s aware o f an d concur s wit

h th e trad e name registration. ^ I n thi s case , w e identifie dtw o similarl y name dai r carriers , GoJe t

Airlines , LLC , d/b/aUnite d Expres s ("GoJef') , an d Helitrans , Co. , Inc . d^/ aG O Helitran s ("Helitrans") , an d directe d Mokulel e t o notif y eac h ai r carrier o f it s propose dus e o f

th e trad e name "golMokulele. " O n Jun e 9 , 2010 , Mokulel e provide d evidenc e tha

t i t hadcomplie dwit

h ou r request . Sinc e Mokulel e ha s complie dwit h th e requirement s o f

Par t 215 , w e acknowledg e th e registratio n o f th e trad e name "golMokulele " b y Mokulel e fo r us e i n certai n o f

it s operations . Date da t Washington , D.C , Jun e 23 , 2010 .
TOD D M . HOMA N Directo r Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s A n electroni c versio n o f

thi s document

i s availabl e on th e World Wid e We b a t http://www . regulations.go v

1 5e e Order

2006-12-1 9 ^ Mes aha s previousl y registere d an d continue s t o us e th e trad e name "golMokulele " i n certai n o f

it s operations . Mokulel e acknowledge s tha t th e aircraf

t to b e use db y Mokulel e i n operatin g servic e o n behal f o f Mes awil l clearl y indicate tha

t Mokulel e i s th e operatin g ai r carrier . Mokulel e fiirther state s tha

t Mes awil l mak

e th e require d disclosure s regardin g th e identit y o f th e operatin g carrie r

in accordanc e wit

h th e provision s o f

1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 257 .Attachmen t A
SERVIC E LIS T FO R MOKULEL E FLIGH T SERVICE , INC . BRIA N S GILLMA

N VIC E PRESIDEN T & GENERAL COUNSEL MES A AI RGROU P IN C 41 0 N . 44TH STREET SUITE 70 0 PHOENI X AZ 8500 8 CLA Y MORITZ RTS-4 2 OFFIC E O F AIRLINE INFORMATIO N DOT/RSPA/BT S E-3 6 120 0 NEW JERSE Y AVENU E S E WASHINGTO N D C 2059 0 PETERLYNC H FAA ASS T CHIE F COUNSE L FORENFORCEMENT AGC-30 0 80 0 INDEPENDENC E AV E S W WASHINGTO N D C 2059 1 BERNARD STANKU S RTS-4 2 OFFIC E O F AIRLINE INFORMATIO N DOT/RSPA/BT S E-3 6 120 0 NEW JERSE Y AV E S E WASHINGTO N D C 2059 0 M RDAVI D LUS K PO I FO RMOKULELE FLIGHT SERVIC E IN C FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N HONOLUL U FSD O 13 5 NAKOL O PLAC E HONOLULU H I 9681 9
#### London Character Shoe Corporation et al. v. Alfred S. Davis, as Treasurer of Retail Shoe Salesmen’s Union, Local 1115-F, A. F. of L., et al., Impleaded with Others.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### TRIPP, County Treasurer, Respondent, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF YANKTON, Appellant.

(205 N. W. 666.)

(File No. 5431.

Opinion filed November 9, 1925.)

1. Appeal and. Error — New Trial — Findings—Order o£ Trial Court Granting New Trial on Ground That Findings Were Not Supported by Evidence Held Proper.

Order of trial court granting new trial on grounds that findings of fact were against weight of evidence, and that judgment was not supported by proper and complete findings of fact and conclusions- of law, will not be disturbed in Supreme Court.

*Clark & Henderson,*of Yankton, for Appellant.

•2. Appeal and Error — Supreme Court Will Not Decide Question of Law Until Facts Have Been Finally determined in Trial Court.

Question of law in case should not be considered by Supreme Court until facts have been finally determined in trial court.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yankton County; Hon. L. L. FunkGUR, Judge.

Action by Gertrude L-. Tripp against the First National Bank •of Yankton. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Bogue & Bogue,*of P’arker, for Respondent.

(1) To point one of the opinion, Appellant cited: McLeod ~v. Shelly Manufacturing Company (Ala.), 9 So. 326; Dugane v. Hvezda Pokroku (la.), 119 N. W. 141; Bulks v. Cheadle (Minn.), 30 N. W. 549; Richardson v. Woodring (la..), 37 N. W. 122; Buchanan v. Randall, 21 S. D. 44, 109 N. W. 513; Mauzy v. Hinrichs (N’eb.), 131 N. W. 218.

Respondent cited: Security State Bank of Beresford v. Bank of Centerville (S. D.), 19,3 N. W. 670; Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. H. E. Míonk et al (S. D.), 189 N. W. 513; Larson v. Johnson (S. D1.), 178 N. *W.*876.

*10Note.- — -Reported in 205 N. W. 66-6. See, Headnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and Error, Key-No. 979(2), 4 C. J. Sec. 2816; (2) Appeal and Error, Key-No. 843(1), 4 C. J. Sec. 2541.

POLLEY, P. J.

In this case the trial court made findings of fact and1 conclusions of law favorable to the defendant, and entered judgment accordingly. Thereafter, upon plaintiff’s motion, a new trial was granted, and the case is here on appeal by the defendant from the order granting a new trial.

In the order appealed from the trial judge stated as a reason for setting aside the judgment and granting a new trial that in his opinion the findings of fact are not only unsupported by the evidence, but are against the clear preponderance of the evidence, and also the further reason that the judgment is not supported by “proper and competent findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

[i, 2] We do not believe this court should disturb an order of the trial court based upon the above grounds. We have not overlooked the very serious question of law involved in the case, but believe that this should not be considered until the facts have been finally determined by the trial court.

The order appealed from is affirmed.