alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Nancy J. Baker, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Cymer, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 5, 2004 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
|                    |   | /s/  NANCY J. BAKER |   |   |
|                    | Nancy  J. Baker |   |
|                    | Sr.  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
AV I ATION 

October 2, 2015 

SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO: Federal Docket Management System, www.regulations.gov 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 

Subject: Extension of Exemption 10960 I Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0716 under 14 CFR part 

11 . 

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Brim Equipment Leasing, Inc. dba. Brim Aviation is seeking an extension to Exemption 10960. This 

exemption from 133.45(e)(1) permits Brim Aviation to conduct Class D Rotorcraft-Load combinations 

with MD 900 (902 configuration) helicopters certificated in the normal category under part 27, subject to 

the following: 

1. All personnel conducting Class D operations will be trained in accordance with Brim Aviation's 

currently approved Class D Rotorcraft-Load Combination Training Manual to include both: Initial 

and Recurrent training. 

2. All Class D operations will be conducted in accordance with Brim Aviation's currently approved 

Rotorcraft-Load Combination Operations manual. 

3. All Class D operations will be conducted in compliance with 133.45(e)(1 ), at a weight and altitude 

that provide hover capability with one engine inoperative. 

4. Brim Aviation may utilize provisions of this exemption only when operating MD 900 (902 

configuration) helicopters in the transport of marine pilots to and from ships in United States Ports. 

5. Prior to each flight, the pilot in command will confirm that the weight and balance and performance 

of the rotorcraft are within the appropriate Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) and RFM supplement 

limitations, as necessary to comply with (3) above. 

No changes are requested to the exemption and based on the current exemption we feel that: 

1. The level of safety remains equivalent to that provided under the regulation. 

2. Brim Aviation will be able to continue transport of marine pilots in an efficient and safe manner thus 

providing a benefit to the public. 

PO Box 3009, Ashland, OR 97520 

Tel: 541-482-1008 • Fax: 866-929-5133 

www. brimaviation. com 
Please let me know if you have any questions or desire additional information. I can be reached at 

541.482.1008 or by e-mail at burl@brimaviation.com. 

~VJ Cor ~ "~' Gt~ 

Burl Brim, Jr. 

President 

BB/jp
#### Redman et al. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Dummit, Attorney General.

October 24, 1947.

Lawrence F. Speckman, Judge.

Luther Roberts for appellants.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, Frank A. Ropke and Charles E. Keller for appellee.

*273Opinion op the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner

—Affirming.

The appellants are John M. Redman, alias John Marlon; Christine Redman, Charles B. O’Nan, Walter O’Nan and Arthur Ratliff. They have been enjoined from maintaining a nuisance of the class described in other opinions delivered today, namely, a common gambling house.

John M. Redman and his wife, Christine Redman, own the real estate. Redman operated the place the past year. It was previously run by one Stafford under lease. The saloon license is in Redman’s name”, but the year before it was in his wife’s name.

The building is located on the corner of Fourth and Avery Streets in Louisville. It has two front entrances, numbered 328 and 330 West Avery Street. It is in the same general neighborhood as the other nuisances, but closer in to the business portion of the city. It is in a residential district, not far from the University of Louisville, and near several large industries. It is also near a car barn of the city railway company, by reason of which it doubtless chose the name of “The Barn Cafe.” It is a combined restaurant, saloon and gambling house, conducted in No. 330 West Avery. The next door, No. 328, has been occupied under lease by John Michael. In testifying as to his knowledge of the business Michael conducted there, Redman responded, “That is something I don’t know nothing about.” But it developed that he knew it to be a saloon and “smoker.” He claimed and was granted immunity from testifying as to his personal knowledge of any gambling transactions in that room.

■ The only special argument made in this case is that the testimony of the Chief of Police as to numerous raids upon this building and of the many arrests of John Redman and other persons at the place was incompetent, since he had no personal knowledge of them and was testifying from a memorandum taken from the official records. We need not pass on the question of the competency of this evidence for there was other evidence justifying the injunction.

On the authority of Goose v. Commonwealth, 305 *274Ky. 644, 205 S. W. 2d 326 and Coleman, Sr., v. Commonwealth, 304 Ky. 115, 200 S. W. 2d 151, the judgment is affirmed.
##### 



Granted To:
    
    TCS Employee(the Employee)Grant Date:
    
    January 1, 2007Granted:
    
    10Grant Price:
    
    $0.0000Vesting Schedule:
    
    2007 Exec Restricted Stock3 on 04/10/20073 on 07/10/20074 on 10/10/2007
  Signature:
    
    
    
    Date:
  Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above,
please make the appropriate corrections on this form.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael D. Durham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of ADA-ES, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)        the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Durham
|Name:                 |  | Michael D. Durham                    
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                 |  | November 12, 2010
Issue Date: 08/13/13 1 13-017 

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS 

Change Notice 13-017

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date

1. IMC 0612 App D 10/28/11 IMC 0612 App D 08/13/13 

2. IMC 2516 02/18/05 IMC 2516 08/13/13 

3. IP 62712 08/13/13 

5. IP 65001 10/03/07 IP 65001 08/13/13 

4. IP 71152 01/31/13 IP 71152 08/13/13 

TRAINING: No. 

REMARKS: IMC 0612 App D, “Documenting Problem Identification and Resolution Biennial 

Team Inspections (IP 71152),” has been revised to address regional reliability 

effort change recommendations. Removed sample inspection reports for future 

incorporation into IMC 0612 Exhibit 3. 

IMC 2516, “Policy and Guidance for the License Renewal Inspection Program,” 

has been revised to update the division and branches, include additional 

definitions, include guidance on timely renewal applications and remove the 

Region Notification of Plant Readiness for License Renewal and the Sample 

License Renewal Inspection Letter. 

IP 62712, “Part 52, Maintenance Rule,” is an initial issuance to support 

inspections of construction programs described in IMC 2504, “Inspection of 

Construction and Operational Programs.” 

IP 65001, “Inspections of Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance Criteria 

(ITAAC) Related Work,” has been revised as a complete re-write to address 

current inspection program policies. 

IP 71152, “Problem Identification and Resolution,” has been revised to relocate 

some documentation guidance related to the biennial PI&R inspection contained 

in Section 03.07 of this IP to IMC 0612 App D to eliminate redundancy and 

possible guidance conflicts. 

DISTRIBUTION: Standard. 

END
#### Nathan Kramer et al., Respondents, v. Atlas Productions, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Present — Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
### Part B—Clean Power Projects
### SUBCHAPTER I—RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In the original, section 4 of Pub. L. 93–644, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2292, provided in part that "Title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is amended to read as follows: 'Title II—Research and Demonstrations' ". Section 4 also added sections 101 to 105 to such title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. However, title II was subsequently redesignated title I of the Act by section 2(a)(3) of Pub. L. 94–341, July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 803, and classified as subchapter I of this chapter.

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

#### Authorization of Appropriations for President's Council on Youth Opportunity

Pub. L. 91–176, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 826, provided: "That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the expenses of the President's Council on Youth Opportunity, established by Executive Order Numbered 11330 of March 5, 1967."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 11330

Ex. Ord. No. 11330, Mar. 5, 1967, 32 F.R. 3871, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11547, July 10, 1970, 35 F.R. 11221; Ex. Ord. No. 12107, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055, which established the President's Council on Youth Opportunity and the Citizens Advisory Board on Youth Opportunity and provided for their respective memberships, functions, etc., was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12379, §17, Aug. 17, 1982, 47 F.R. 36100, formerly set out as a note under section 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
### §8167. Exemption from State and local taxes

(a) Improvements and Operations Not Exempted.—The improvements and operations on land leased by a person with an enhanced-use lease from the Secretary shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Federal, State, or local law relating to taxation, fees, and assessments.

(b) Underlying Fee Title Interest Exempted.—The underlying fee title interest of the United States in any land subject to an enhanced-use lease shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to any provision of State or local law relating to taxation, fees, or assessments.

(Added Pub. L. 102–86, title IV, §401(a), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat. 421; amended Pub. L. 112—154, title II, §211(h), Aug. 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 1181.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–154 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "The interest of the United States in any property subject to an enhanced-use lease and any use by the United States of such property during such lease shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to any State or local law relative to taxation, fees, assessments, or special assessments, except sales taxes charged in connection with any construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or improvement project carried out under the lease."
### §10001. Statement of findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) it is in the interest of public health and safety to minimize unnecessary exposure to potentially hazardous radiation due to medical and dental radiologic procedures;

(2) it is in the interest of public health and safety to have a continuing supply of adequately educated persons and appropriate accreditation and certification programs administered by State governments;

(3) the protection of the public health and safety from unnecessary exposure to potentially hazardous radiation due to medical and dental radiologic procedures and the assurance of efficacious procedures are the responsibility of State and Federal governments;

(4) persons who administer radiologic procedures, including procedures at Federal facilities, should be required to demonstrate competence by reason of education, training, and experience; and

(5) the administration of radiologic procedures and the effect on individuals of such procedures have a substantial and direct effect upon United States interstate commerce.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §976, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 598.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §975, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 598, provided that: "This subtitle [subtitle I (§§975–983) of title IX of Pub. L. 97–35, enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981'."
### Part C—Nutrition Services
#### Isidore Goldstein, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Federal Mail and General Express Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless respondent stipulates to reduce verdict to the sum of $2,500, in which event the judgment as so reduced and the order appealed from are affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Order to be settled on notice. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Christopher Donald Lomprey Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) I947A
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Page 12 of 19


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(e)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-B

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Banker's Trust Company                        Key Bank USA, National Association
Four Albany Street                            800 Superior Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, New York  10006                     Cleveland, Ohio  44114
ATTN: Corporate Trust & Agency Group          ATTN: Senior Vice President
       Structured Finance                     Key Education Resources
Phone: (212) 250-6501                         Phone: (216) 828-9342
Fax:   (212) 250-6439                         Fax:   (216) 828-9301.


Pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Indenture dated as of September 01, 1999 between
KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 1999-B, as Issuer, and Banker's Trust Company as
Indenture Trustee, the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of the Issuer from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, and of
its performance under the Indenture has been made, and (ii) to the best of our
knowledge, based on our review, the Issuer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Indenture throughout such period.

                                   KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-B, as Issuer
                                   By:  Bank One, National Association
                                        as Eligible Lender Trustee

                                   By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kinney
                                      -----------------------------------------
Date: 3/15/01                      Jeffrey L. Kinney
                                   Vice President
Exhibit
14


CODE
OF ETHICS FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER





This Code
of Ethics for the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the
Chief Accounting Officer (this “Code of Ethics”) governs the conduct of the
Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Accounting
Officer of Victoria Industries, Inc. (the “Company”). This Code of Ethics is
designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote ethical and legal behavior by the
Company’s Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief
Accounting Officer.





The Chief
Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Accounting Officer
are responsible for:





a) Acting
with honesty and integrity, and avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of
interest involving personal and professional relationships. A “conflict of
interest” exists when an individual’s private interests interfere or conflict in
any way (or even appear to interfere or conflict) with the interests of the
Company;





b)
Ensuring that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures function properly
and providing information that is full, fair, accurate, timely, and
understandable for Securities and Exchange Commission filings and in other
public communications made by the Company;





c)
Complying with applicable laws, rules, and regulations of all U.S. and non-U.S.
governmental entities, as well as other private and public regulatory agencies
to which the Company is subject;





d) Acting
in good faith and, responsibly with due care, competence and diligence, without
misrepresenting material facts or allowing independent judgment to violate this
Code of Ethics; and





e)
Reporting illegal or unethical conduct by a director, officer or employee that
has occurred, is occurring or may occur, including any potential violations of
this Code of Ethics.





Violations
of this Code of Ethics shall be reported to the Chairman of the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors whether the violations are of a financial or
non-financial nature. The waiver of any duty or responsibility set forth in this
Code of Ethics must be made by the Board of Directors of the Company. This Code
of Ethics will be an Exhibit to Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009.





Acknowledgment





This is
to acknowledge receipt of the Code of Ethics for the Chief Executive Officer,
the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Accounting Officer. I understand that
failure to adhere to the principles and responsibilities set forth in this Code
of Ethics may result in disciplinary action, including reprimand, warnings,
suspension, demotion, salary reduction, restitution and/or discharge, as well as
possible legal penalties.





Signature:
                    /s/ Oleg
BatratchenkoOleg
      BatratchenkoChief
      Executive
Officer





Date:
March 26, 2010
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-45618, 333-65878 and 333-97235) pertaining to
the 1995 Share Option and Incentive Plan, 1998 Share Option and Incentive Plan,
2000 Employees Share Purchase Plan, Amended and Restated 1998 Share Option and
Incentive Plan and the Precise Software Solutions Ltd. Stock Option Plan
(Formerly Savant Corporation Stock Option Plan) and on Forms S-3 (Registration
Nos. 333-81620,333-65876 and 333-102859) of Precise Software Solutions Ltd. and
in the related prospectus of our report dated January 21, 2003, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Precise Software Solutions Ltd.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A), as amended, for the year ended
December 31, 2002.







                                                      /s/ Kost, Forer and Gabbay
                                                      --------------------------
May 23, 2003                                              KOST, FORER and GABBAY
Tel-Aviv, Israel                                A Member of Ernst & Young Global
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133645 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE Stephen J. Markman, COMPANY, LLC, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133645 COA: 270453 Genesee CC: 05-081083-CH COMERICA BANK, Defendant-Appellee,

and

NORMA J. HETTICH, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 21, 2007

Clerk
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-12-0034 - Proposed Rulemaking:  10 CFR 50.46c: Emergency Core Cooling Systems Performace During Loss-of-Coolant Accidents (RIN 3150-AH42)

Accession Number: ML112620346

Date Released: Monday, March 19, 2012

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML112520186 - SECY-12-0034 - Proposed Rulemaking - 10 CFR 50.46c:  Emergency Core Cooling System Performance During Loss-of-Coolant Accidents (RIN 3150-AH42) (11 page(s), 3/1/2012)
    - ML112520249 - SECY-12-0034 - Enclosure 1 - Federal Register Notice - Performance-Based ECCS Cladding Acceptance Criteria (96 page(s), 3/1/2012)
    - ML112520277 - SECY-12-0034 - Enclosure 2 - Regulatory Analysis:  Performance Based ECCS Cladding Acceptance Criteria (50 page(s), 3/1/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 270.103 Publication in the Federal Register.

The Director will promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of the establishment of each Team.