alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 113.3-2 Accommodations to religious observance and practice.

A recipient of financial assistance must accommodate to the religious observances and practices of an employee or prospective employee unless the recipient demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. As part of this obligation, recipient must make reasonable accommodations to the religious observances and practices of an employee or prospective employee who regularly observes Friday evening and Saturday, or some other day of the week, as Sabbath and/or who observes certain religious holidays during the year and who is conscientiously opposed to performing work or engaging in similar activity on such days, when such accommodations can be made without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. In determining the extent of a recipient's obligations under this section, at least the following factors should be considered: (a) Business necessity, (b) financial costs and expenses, and (c) resulting personnel problems.
****

****

**Exhibit 31(i)**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

	I,  Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of Tayco Developments, Inc., certify that:

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

        2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

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

        4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))  [omitted]  for the small business issuer and have:

                (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

                (b)	[NOT REQUIRED]

                (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 report basedon such evaluation; and

                (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer'sinternal control over financial reporting; and

        5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and theaudit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

                (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

                (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
### [§44G. Renumbered §41]
#### McKim et al. v. Smith.

June 25, 1943.

*836R. J. Wade for appellants.

William G. Reed for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Fulton

Reversing.

An action was filed by tbe appellants in the Carroll Circuit Court against the appellee in the year 1939 on an account for medical services. A motion to make the account more specific and definite was filed by the appellee. Before answer was filed and while the motion was pending, judgment was entered on August 31, 1939 for $330 with interest from January 1, 1933. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

Execution was issued on the judgment and levied on personal property of the appellee. This action was filed by the appellee to enjoin the appellants and the sheriff from selling the property under the levy. The circuit court enjoined collection only of that portion of the judgment which awarded interest from January 1, 1933 to the date of its rendition, August 31, 1939, thus holding, in effect, that the judgment was erroneous in awarding interest prior to the date of the judgment. From .the judgment enjoining the collection of such interest this appeal is prosecuted.

Although the amount of interest in controversy is only $131.09, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal since it is prosecuted from a judgment granting an injunction and is not merely an effort to circumvent the statute limiting our right to .review a monetary judgment. Com. v. Burnett, 274 Ky. 231, 118 S. W. (2d) 558; Newton v. Citizens’ Bank of Shelbyville, 251 Ky. 790, 66 S. W. (2d) 7; Charos v. Jent et al., 293 Ky. 50, 168 S. *W.*(2d) 334.

Since it was clearly within the jurisdiction of the *837circuit court to determine from wliat date interest should be allowed on the account sued on, the judgment of August 31, 1939 was not void to the extent that it awarded interest from January 1, 1933. Nor was the judgment void because of its entry while the motion to make more specific and definite was pending and undecided — this only rendered the judgment erroneous.

And, since the- judgment was not void and had become final, the only power the court had to set it aside was under section 518 of the Civil Code of Practice. The allegations of the petition were wholly insufficient to justify the granting of a new trial under this section. There was no allegation of fraud by the successful party and the petition did not purport to seek a new trial on any other ground. Further, the petition failed to allege the defense that would have been interposed if the judgment had not been rendered. This was essential. Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Vanhook, 162 Ky. 332, 172 S. W. 680; McCoy v. Field Grocery Co., 142 Ky. 812, 135 S. W. 319. As a matter of fact, the court did not either grant a new trial or adjudge that the judgment was void — it merely set aside a portion of the judgment, thereby correcting it in a particular in which, apparently, it deemed it erroneous. This it was without power to do, the judgment having become final.

Reversed with directions to enter a judgment in conformity with this opinion.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF GILLES OUELLETTE


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M45 Mining
Resources, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
            December
      3, 2009





/s/ Gilles OuelletteGilles
      OueletteChief
      Financial Officer
### §973. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 87–629, §3, Sept. 5, 1962, 76 Stat. 429, which related to distribution of assets, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report of In Veritas Medical Diagnostics, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin
      Thorp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      In Veritas Medical Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Lapis Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




November
      __, 2007





/s/
                Martin Thorp
              Martin
                Thorp
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.443

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182545 dated July 15, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Telematic services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until July 15, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 23, 2020 No. 172-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Terlyakov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,
   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119598
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-22423-CV-UNGARO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID 

SH GROUP GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS, LLC

 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

2399 COLLINS AVE. CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, 

and JOHN P. BOSTANY, an Individual, 

 Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER FOR REPLY TO MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF No. 42] 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant SH GROUP GLOBAL IP 

HOLDINGS, LLC’s Motion to Compel Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff JOHN P. BOSTANY to 

Produce Responsive Documents. [ECF No. 42]. This cause has been referred to the Undersigned 

to take all necessary and proper action to resolve. [ECF No. 43]. 

On October 22, 2020, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff JOHN P. BOSTANY filed a Response 

to the Motion to Compel, which argued that its supplemental discovery “renders moot virtually 

the entire Motion.” [ECF No. 60 at 2]. The Undersigned previously advised the parties that no 

reply shall be filed unless ordered by the Court. [ECF No. 44]. 

Upon review of the Response, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 

SH GROUP GLOBAL IP HOLDINGS, LLC shall file a reply to the Motion by October 29, 2020. 

The reply shall at the very least state whether the Motion to Compel is moot, and whether a hearing 

on this matter is sought. The reply shall not exceed seven (7) double-spaced pages, not including 

pages excluded by S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(2), and shall use 12-point or greater font. 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 1 of 2
2 

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2020. 

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

cc: All Counsel of Record via CM/ECF; and 

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro 

Case 1:20-cv-22423-UU Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 2 of 2
### §271. Debts owed by political parties, etc.

#### (a) General rule

In the case of a taxpayer (other than a bank as defined in section 581) no deduction shall be allowed under section 166 (relating to bad debts) or under section 165(g) (relating to worthlessness of securities) by reason of the worthlessness of any debt owed by a political party.

#### (b) Definitions

#### (1) Political party

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "political party" means—

(A) a political party;

(B) a national, State, or local committee of a political party; or

(C) a committee, association, or organization which accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the election of presidential or vice-presidential electors or of any individual whose name is presented for election to any Federal, State, or local elective public office, whether or not such individual is elected.

#### (2) Contributions

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C), the term "contributions" includes a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit, of money, or anything of value, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement to make a contribution, whether or not legally enforceable.

#### (3) Expenditures

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C), the term "expenditures" includes a payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift, of money, or anything of value, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement to make an expenditure, whether or not legally enforceable.

#### (c) Exception

In the case of a taxpayer who uses an accrual method of accounting, subsection (a) shall not apply to a debt which accrued as a receivable on a bona fide sale of goods or services in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's trade or business if—

(1) for the taxable year in which such receivable accrued, more than 30 percent of all receivables which accrued in the ordinary course of the trades and businesses of the taxpayer were due from political parties, and

(2) the taxpayer made substantial continuing efforts to collect on the debt.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 82; Pub. L. 94–455, title XXI, §2104(a), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1901.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–455 added subsec. (c).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–455, title XXI, §2104(b), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1902, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1975."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

YACHTS, LLC, dba PENNANT YACHTS 

a Delaware limited liability company, and

ALAN KAUFMAN, individually, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF MIAMI, Florida,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

DEFENDANT CITY OF MIAMI’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, CITY OF MIAMI (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, and 

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, et seq., hereby gives notice of removal of this cause by 

the filing and service of this Notice, and states:

1. On or about April 30, 2020, YACHTS, LLC, d/b/a PENNANT YACHTS, and 

ALAN KAUFMAN served Defendant with their complaint filed in the Miami-Dade Circuit 

Court, Case No.: 20-009301 CA 01. 

2. The above-referenced complaint was the first receipt by Defendant of a pleading 

from which it could be ascertained that the case is one which has become removable, as it sets 

forth purported claims in Counts I, V and VI for alleged deprivations of the United States 

Constitution. 

3. Copies of all process, pleadings and orders served upon the Defendant in the 

action being removed are attached hereto in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).

Case 1:20-cv-21819-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2020 Page 1 of 3
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of May 2020.

VICTORIA MÉNDEZ, City Attorney

HENRY J. HUNNEFELD, Legal Consultant

Attorneys for City of Miami

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945

Miami, FL 33130-1910

Tel.: (305) 416-1800

Fax: (305) 416-1801

Primary Email: hjhunnefeld@miamigov.com

Secondary Email: ddiaz@miamigov.com

By: Henry J. Hunnefeld

Henry J. Hunnefeld, Legal Consultant

Florida Bar No. 343811

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 1st, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served 

this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the 

manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or 

in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

By: Henry J. Hunnefeld

Henry J. Hunnefeld, Legal Consultant

Florida Bar No. 343811

Case 1:20-cv-21819-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2020 Page 2 of 3
SERVICE LIST

William K. Hill, Esq.

Amy Brigham Boulris, Esq.

Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A.

Brickell World Plaza

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3500

Miami, FL 33131

whill@gunster.com,whill@gunster.com

ABoulris@gunster.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Yachts, LLC, d/b/a Pennant Tachts,

and Alan Kaufman

Case 1:20-cv-21819-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2020 Page 3 of 3
### §131. Wyoming

Wyoming and those portions of Yellowstone National Park situated in Montana and Idaho constitute one judicial district.

Court shall be held at Casper, Cheyenne, Evanston, Lander, Jackson, and Sheridan.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 895; Pub. L. 98–353, title II, §203(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 350.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on section 27 of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Conservation, and title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §196 (May 7, 1894, ch. 72, §5, 28 Stat. 74; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§115, 291, 36 Stat. 1130, 1167; June 5, 1924, ch. 260, 43 Stat. 388; June 28, 1938, ch. 778, §1, 52 Stat. 1213).

Section consolidates section 196 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with a portion of section 27 of title 16, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in arrangement and phraseology. Reference to parts of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho is derived from said section 27. Other provisions of said section are incorporated in sections 631 and 632 of this title.

A provision of section 196 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for furnishing rooms and accommodations at Casper was omitted as obsolete, upon advice of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that Federal accommodations are now available there.

Provisions of section 196 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for appointment of deputies and maintenance of offices by the clerk and marshal were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–353 provided for holding court at Jackson.
11400 Robinwood Drive • Hagerstown, Maryland 21742-6590 • 301-790-2800 • www.hagerstowncc.edu 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 

14 CFR Part 11, Hagerstown Community College, an operator of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(UAS), respectfully applies for exemption consideration from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations to 

allow commercial operation and educational programs of designated UAS platforms, provided such 

operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined in this application or as may be 

established by the FAA as required by Section 333. 

Approval of this exemption would " .... establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft 

systems in the National Airspace System." This project will increase public education and 

awareness of UAS operations, furthering aviation safety and aid others in fulfilling the Secretary of 

Transportation's request to educate UAS operators on the proper conduct for flying and laws 

pertaining to the operation of UAS platforms in the National Airspace System. 

Hagerstown Community College's mission is to develop a meaningful and accessible UAS curriculum 

and information programs that will provide education and training opportunities for this expanding 

industry. 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a), Hagerstown Community College offers the following 

information in support of its Petition for Exemption. 

The primary contact person for this exemption petition is:

Daniel T. Vogel 

Director, Technology and Computer Studies 

Hagerstown Community College 

Phone: (240) 500-2402 

Website: www.hagerstowncc.edu/tcs 

Email: dtvogel@hagerstowncc.edu 

Sincerely, 

Daniel T. Vogel 

Director of Technology and Computer Studies
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 12651 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:17

- cr - 00555

- SCB

- AEP

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ASHAN TI ROUNDTREE, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

_______________ _________ (May 15, 2020) Before JORDAN , NEWSOM and LAGOA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas Burns, appointed counsel for Ashanti Roundtree in this direct Case: 19-12651 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 1 of 22 criminal appeal, filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We denied Burns’s motion based on potential violations of Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195 (2019). Burns has now filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial in light of our decision in United States v. Moore , 954 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020) and for leave to file that motion out of time. Roundtree, pro se , has also filed a motion
to appoint new counsel.
Burns submitted a response to Roundtree ’s motion to appoint new counsel by letter dated April 14, 2020, and requested that the letter be filed ex parte because it contains confidential discussions of his work product and attorney

- client communications. Burns ’s letter is construed as a motion f or leave to file his letter ex parte and is GRANTED. Burns ’s letter will not appear on this Court’s public docket. Burns’s motion to file out of time a motion for reconsideration of our denial of his Anders motion is GRANTED. Because independent review o f the record reveals no issues of arguable merit regarding the Rehaif errors that could be raised on appeal, or any other issues of arguable merit, Burns’s motion for reconsideration and his motion to withdraw are also GRANTED

. Roundtree’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED. Roundtree’s pro se motion to substitute counsel is therefore DENIED as moot

.

Case: 19-12651 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 2 of 2