alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ricardo A. Verdaguer, Chief
Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, that:

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 result of operations of the registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

|                   |  |                                                            |  | 
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: May 20, 2003 |  |                                                            |  | 
|                   |  |                                                            |  | 
|                   |  | /s/ Ricardo A. Verdaguer                                   |  | 
|                   |  |                                                            |  | 
|                   |  | Ricardo A. Verdaguer
President and Chief Executive Officer |  |
#### § 93.53 Federal Register notice of formula allocations.

Not later than 60 calendar days after the date that HUD determines the formula amounts under this subpart, HUD will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the allocations to States.
### §15902. Enforcement by the Board

The Board may bring a civil action to enforce an order of the Board, except a civil action to enforce an order for the payment of money, when it is violated by a pipeline carrier providing transportation subject to this part.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §106(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 927.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11702 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
§ 550.1404 Which violations will BOEM review for potential civil penalties? BOEM will review each of the following violations for potential civil penalties: ( a ) Violations that you do not correct within the period BOEM grants;
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) Violations of the oil spill financial responsibility requirements at 30 CFR part 553.
§ 550.121 What must I do to protect health, safety, property, and the environment? The Director may require additional measures to ensure the use of Best Available and Safest Technology (BAST) as identified by BSEE: ( a ) To avoid the failure of equipment that would have a significant effect on safety, health, or the environment;
( b ) If it is economically feasible; and
( c ) If the incremental benefits justify the incremental costs.
[81 FR 18152, Mar. 30, 2016]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Garrett, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 105]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered March 7, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree and three counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation with restitution in the amount of $9,478.32, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we *432decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s larcenous and fraudulent intent can be inferred from the fact that he made false statements on his tax returns *(see e.g. People v Cook,*284 AD2d 340 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 917 [2001]; *People v Stumbrice,*194 AD2d 931, 934 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 727 [1993]). Defendant, who worked for New York City Transit and lived in Brooklyn, correctly identified his employer on his tax returns but falsely stated that his employer was a foreign entity, and thus claimed that all of his wages constituted foreign earned income; as a result, defendant received refunds of all the money that had been withheld from his paychecks for the years in question.

The court properly precluded defendant from asking the People’s witnesses about the details of the explanation that he or one of his representatives gave, at a meeting with tax officials, for taking the foreign income exclusion, and this ruling did not impair defendant’s right to present a defense. While the People elicited some evidence about the meeting, they did not elicit anything that would require admission of the proffered explanation under the rule of completeness *(see People v Dlugash,*41 NY2d 725, 736 [1977]). The proffered exculpatory statements also failed to qualify for admission under a state of mind theory *(see People v Villanueva,*35 AD3d 229 [2006]). Defendant’s remaining argument is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods covered in the Report.
 /s/ Robert B. Nolen, Jr.Robert B. Nolen, Jr., Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3164 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3164

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make geothermal heat pump 
                systems eligible for the energy credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 2005

Mr. Gordon (for himself and Mr. Cooper) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make geothermal heat pump 
                systems eligible for the energy credit.

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

SECTION 1. GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS TREATED AS ENERGY PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 48(a)(3) is amended by 
striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by inserting ``or'' at the 
end of clause (ii), and by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) equipment which uses the ground or 
                        ground water as a thermal energy source to heat 
                        a structure or as a thermal energy sink to cool 
                        a structure,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Bailey, Appellant.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy. Motion to enlarge time granted. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the January 1961 Term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Joseph A. Iovine, Esq., 66 Court Street, Brooklyn 1, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT F ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

ERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION

~GENCY ACTION: 6 NYCRR Part 212, General Process Emission Sources I Pursuant to the pravisi?ns of Sections 1-0101, 1-0303, 3-0301, 19-0103, 19-

0105, 19-0107, 19-0301, 19-~303, 19-0305, 19-0311, 71-2103, and 71-2105 of the

Environmental Conservation Caw (ECl), I, Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner of

Environmental Conservation, db hereby order that amendments to 6 NYCRR Part 212,

General Process Emission So rees be adopted to read as on the attached original, and

ertify that this is the original thereof, as adopted on b . I (i -: I L. Ie), to be effective

irty days aftor filing with the qepartment of State, and furt~er certify that prior notice as

quired under the State Adrrinistrative Procedure Act was published in the State

egister on December 23, 20~9, and further certify that prior notice of public hearings,

cheduled for and held on Fe~ruary 8, 2010 in Avon, NY, February 9, 2010 in Albany.

Y, and on February 10, 201 qin long Island City, NY, was published in newspapers

Vroughout the Stale on Decefber 23, 2009, and thai a revised proposal notice was

~ublished in the State Registe~on June 16, 2010 and further certify thai this aclion was

pproved by Ihe Slate Environmentai Board pursuant 10 Article 5 of the Environmenlal

onservation law on August 1f' 2010.

Alexander B. Grannis

Commissioner of Environmental Conservation

'ATED: AUG 3 1 2010

Albany, New York
#### § 1210.150 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart identifies specific special-purpose reports and provides general information, reporting options, and reporting addresses. See § 1210.10 for a complete listing of all information collections, including forms and references for specific information collections.
§ 578.73 Matching requirements. ( a ) *In general.* The recipient or subrecipient must match all grant funds, except for leasing funds, with no less than 25 percent of funds or in-kind contributions from other sources. For Continuum of Care geographic areas in which there is more than one grant agreement, the 25 percent match must be provided on a grant-by-grant basis. Recipients that are UFAs or are the sole recipient for their Continuum, may provide match on a Continuum-wide basis. Cash match must be used for the costs of activities that are eligible under subpart D of this part, except that HPCs may use such match for the costs of activities that are eligible under § 578.71.
( b ) *Cash sources.* Notwithstanding 2 CFR 200.306(b)(5), a recipient or subrecipient may use funds from any source, including any other federal sources (excluding Continuum of Care program funds), as well as State, local, and private sources, provided that funds from the source are not statutorily prohibited to be used as a match. The recipient must ensure that any funds used to satisfy the matching requirements of this section are eligible under the laws governing the funds in order to be used as matching funds for a grant awarded under this program.
( c ) *In-kind contributions.* ( 1 ) The recipient or subrecipient may use the value of any real property, equipment, goods, or services contributed to the project as match, provided that if the recipient or subrecipient had to pay for them with grant funds, the costs would have been eligible under Subpart D, or, in the case of HPCs, eligible under § 578.71.
( 2 ) The requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, with the exception of § 200.306(b)(5) apply.
( 3 ) Before grant execution, services to be provided by a third party must be documented by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the recipient or subrecipient and the third party that will provide the services. Services provided by individuals must be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid for similar work in the recipient's or subrecipient's organization. If the recipient or subrecipient does not have employees performing similar work, the rates must be consistent with those ordinarily paid by other employers for similar work in the same labor market. ( i ) The MOU must establish the unconditional commitment, except for selection to receive a grant, by the third party to provide the services, the specific service to be provided, the profession of the persons providing the service, and the hourly cost of the service to be provided.
( ii ) During the term of the grant, the recipient or subrecipient must keep and make available, for inspection, records documenting the service hours provided.
[77 FR 45442, July 31, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 75940, Dec. 7, 2015]
July 8, 2015 

Terry Donohue 

4028 Sierra Drive 

Honolulu, HI 96816 

Dear Terry Donohue: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 29th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2304), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brittany Newton 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### KIESER, Respondent, v. MUIR, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Edward Kieser against John Muir. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward B. Brown, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and proceeding remitted to Erie County Court for a hearing.' Memorandum: The petition shows sufficient facts to entitle the defendant' to a hearing on the issue of whether or not he was prevented from filing his notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction by the prison authorities. (See *People*v. *Hairston,*10 N Y *7972d 92.) (Appeal from order of Erie County Court denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for rape, first degree, rendered October 25, 1952.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.48



                                                             James T. Richardson
                                                          25881 Industrial Blvd.
                                                               Hayward, CA 94945


September 25, 2002


Mr. David Pratt
12324 Melody Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

Dear David:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of AvantGo, it is my pleasure to confirm our
offer to you to become interim CEO of the company. Cash compensation will be at
the rate of $20,000 per month, base salary. Your quarterly target bonus will be
$40,000 per quarter payable upon the achievement of agreed upon objectives. For
Q4 2002, your objectives will be the same as those approved for the corporate
bonus plan for senior objectives.

At the October 17, 2002 you will be granted and option for 250,000 shares of
AvantGo stock at the then current market price. The shares will vest as follows:
125,000 shares on December 31, 2002; 41,666 shares on January 31, 2003, 41,667
on February 28, 2003, and 41,667 shares on March 31, 2003, subject to your being
an employee on each of the vesting dates. If you are terminated other than for
cause prior to March 31, 2003, your total cash compensation will be the greater
of $100,000 or compensation earned to date plus $30,000; also, all unvested
shares shall accelerate and fully vest on the date of termination. Subject to
legal review of what the plan permits, your options will remain exercisable for
at least six months beyond your date of termination.

It is anticipated that your start date will be October 16, 2002. Your base
salary for October 2002 will be prorated to reflect this start date.

We very much look forward to your joining AvantGo. Please confirm your
acceptance of this offer by fax to me at 503-699-0488, by email to
jamest.richardson@attbi.com or jrichardson@avantgo.com, and return the signed
original to my attention at AvantGo.

Sincerely,

/s/ James T. Richardson

James T. Richardson
Chairman



Accepted: David Pratt

/s/  David B. Pratt

Date:  9/25/02
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sundaresan Raja,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to
      the best of my knowledge, that:





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





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














/s/*Sundaresan
                Raja*Sundaresan
                RajaChief
                Executive Officer


April
      16,
      2007
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1913 What criteria for operating procedures must my SEMS program meet? ( a ) You must develop and implement written operating procedures that provide instructions for conducting safe and environmentally sound activities involved in each operation addressed in your SEMS program. These procedures must include the job title and reporting relationship of the person or persons responsible for each of the facility's operating areas and address the following: ( 1 ) Initial startup;
( 2 ) Normal operations;
( 3 ) All emergency operations (including but not limited to medical evacuations, weather-related evacuations and emergency shutdown operations);
( 4 ) Normal shutdown;
( 5 ) Startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown;
( 6 ) Bypassing and flagging out-of-service equipment;
( 7 ) Safety and environmental consequences of deviating from your equipment operating limits and steps required to correct or avoid this deviation;
( 8 ) Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the operations;
( 9 ) Precautions you will take to prevent the exposure of chemicals used in your operations to personnel and the environment. The precautions must include control technology, personal protective equipment, and measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs;
( 10 ) Raw materials used in your operations and the quality control procedures you used in purchasing these raw materials;
( 11 ) Control of hazardous chemical inventory; and
( 12 ) Impacts to the human and marine environment identified through your hazards analysis.
( b ) Operating procedures must be accessible to all employees involved in the operations.
( c ) Operating procedures must be reviewed at the conclusion of specified periods and as often as necessary to assure they reflect current and actual operating practices, including any changes made to your operations.
( d ) You must develop and implement safe and environmentally sound work practices for identified hazards during operations and the degree of hazard presented.
( e ) Review of and changes to the procedures must be documented and communicated to responsible personnel.
April 6, 2012

Mr. Larry E. Williams

President and CEO Ballistic Recovery Systems 1110 Brickel Avenue, Suite 603 Miami, FL 33131

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in response to your April 29 and June 16, 2011, letters sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0492) petitioning the Federal Avia tion Administration (FAA) on behalf of Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS).

On March 21, 2012, you sent an email to Mr. Dan Bachelder of the Aircraft Maintenance Division. In your email you stated that it will serve as the formal notification that BRS agrees to withdraw its petition for exemption.

Therefore, the FAA will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ James M. Crotty Acting Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

cc: Mr. Boris Popov
### Bauxite and Kaolin Deposits of the Irwinton district, Georgia

By: Walter B. LangWalter C. WarrenRaymond M. ThompsonElizabeth F. Overstreet

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1199J

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Kaolin deposits of Twiggs, Washington, and Wilkinson Counties, Georgia(1944)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.