alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  Certification
              pursuant to and in connection with the Annual Reports
          on Form 10-KSB to be filed under Section 13 and 15(d) of the
                   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended


         We, Dennis Vadura, Chief Executive Officer, and Craig A. Hewitt,
Chief Financial Officer, of AccuPoll Holding Corp (the "Registrant"), certify
that:


         1.       We have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the
                  Registrant for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002;

         2.       Based on our knowledge, this annual 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
                  annual report; and

         3.       Based on our knowledge, the financial statements, and other
                  financial information included in this annual 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 annual report.



Dated: October 7, 2002               By:    /s/ Dennis Vadura
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                              Dennis Vadura
                                              Chief Executive Officer

                                     By:    /s/ Craig A. Hewitt
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                              Craig A. Hewitt
                                              Chief Financial Officer


Note:    The above certificate is for an annual report for the period ending
         prior to August 29, 2002. Pursuant to and in accordance with the
         transition rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
         paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the form of certification required under
         Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
         amended, have been excluded from the above certificate.


                                       30
§ 107.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Personal Services Contract.* A contract that, by its express terms or as administered, makes the contractor personnel appear, in effect, to be government employees.
( b ) *Direct Health Care Providers.* Health services personnel who participate in clinical patient care and services. This does not include personnel whose duties are primarily administrative or clerical, nor personnel who provide maintenance or security services.
### Late Cenozoic tectonism of the Sacramento Valley, California

By: D. S. HarwoodE. J. Helley

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1359

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Preliminary structure contour map of the Sacramento Valley, California, showing major late Cenozoic structural features and depth to basement(1982)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
### Ice Volumes on Cascade Volcanoes: Mount Rainier, Mount Hood, Three Sisters, and Mount Shasta

By: Carolyn L. Driedger**Paul M. Kennard

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1365

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Ice volumes on Cascade volcanoes: Mount Rainier, Mount Hood, Three Sisters, and Mount Shasta(1984)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
§ 516.19 Injunctive relief. ( a ) *General.* Plaintiffs may attempt to force government action or restraint in important operational matters or pending personnel actions through motions for temporary restraining orders (TRO) or preliminary injunctions (PI). Because these actions can quickly impede military functions, immediate and decisive action must be taken.
( b ) *Notification to HQDA and U.S. Attorney.* The SJA or legal adviser will immediately notify Litigation Division or other appropriate office at HQDA when a motion for TRO or PI has been, or is about to be, filed. The SJA or legal adviser will also notify the responsible U.S. Attorney.
( c ) *Actions by SJA or legal adviser.* The SJA or legal adviser will assist the DOJ or DA attorney responsible for the litigation. Installation attorneys or support personnel should begin accumulating relevant documentary evidence and identifying witnesses. If requested, installation attorneys will prepare a legal memorandum concerning the motion, giving particular attention to the following issues relevant to a court granting injunctive relief: ( 1 ) Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits.
( 2 ) Whether plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if injunctive relief is not granted.
( 3 ) Harm to defendant and other parties if injunctive relief is granted.
( 4 ) The public interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,658,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               86,636,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,637,000
<INVENTORY>                                139,054,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           233,048,000
<PP&E>                                     109,758,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              40,695,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             326,987,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      202,885,000
<BONDS>                                    103,665,000
<COMMON>                                        57,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,411,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               362,987,000
<SALES>                                    362,596,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           362,596,000
<CGS>                                      317,053,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              317,053,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               449,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          20,881,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (14,428,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    76,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (14,504,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (14,504,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.62)

        

</TABLE>
Appeal No. 77-151.

#### Ronald Roy *v.*Providence Metalizing Co.

*Raul L. Lovett,*for petitioner.

*Eldridge H. Henning, Jr.,*for respondent.

The respondent’s motion for a stay of the final decree of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission in this case is granted.

This case is specially assigned to the calendar for October, 1977 for oral argument.
§ 37.315 What are the advantages of using a fixed-support TIA? In situations where the use of fixed-support TIAs is permissible (see §§ 37.305 and 37.310), their use may encourage some commercial firms' participation in the research. With a fixed-support TIA, you can eliminate or reduce some post-award requirements that sometimes are cited as disincentives for those firms to participate. For example, a fixed-support TIA need not: ( a ) Specify minimum standards for the recipient's financial management system.
( b ) Specify cost principles or standards stating the types of costs the recipient may charge to the project.
( c ) Provide for financial audits by Federal auditors or independent public accountants of the recipient's books and records.
( d ) Set minimum standards for the recipient's purchasing system.
( e ) Require the recipient to prepare financial reports for submission to the Federal Government.
# NORWOODMEMORIALAIRPORT

TO: FROM: RE: TODAY' SDATE: 

# MEMO Norwood Airport Commission Russ Maguire Gate3TOFA, Fueling Setbacks June 17, 2013 Specific to the gate 3 taxi-lane, and Boston Executive Helicopters' plans to construct a fuel fann in the vicinity ofgate 3, the Norwood Airport Commission (NAC) has held discussions already 1 on two applicable issues
. These include: 1) aircraft fueling setbacks; and 2) the taxi-lane objectfree area (TOFA)
. As noted inAttachment G, the aircraft fueling setbacks for Norwood Airport are in the process of being updated to reflect federal standards. The minimum distance away from BEH's proposed hangar that fuel can be dispensed is 25 feet. Regarding the TOFA issue, to review, the design standard for Norwood Airport's TOFA width (Attachment E) is 115 feet, or, 57
.5 feet from the taxi-lane centerline
. At the December 2012 NAC meeting, the TOFA issue, in particular, was discussed. JeffAdler was at the meeting, and he agreed to speak with FAA about the possibility of requesting a TOFA modification to standard. Among otherthings, this would have allowed BEHto fuel aircraft inside the object-free area. However, as 

### Mr. Adler noted in his 

### 12/20/12 e-mail to me, which was then passed on to 

### Mr. Donovan:"
.. .The concern from FAA is the use ofthe current taxi-lane (size and type ofaircraft) and how that would change by allowingpossible larger itinerant aircraft operating on this taxilane late at night looking for fuel. Although there may not be any documented incidents along this taxiway, that could change with itinerant aircraft operating in this area where the current taxilane does not meet OFA (object-free area) standards
." AttachmentF is a hand-drawn schematic which shows that in the vicinity ofthe gate 3taxi-lane, a number offixed objects (buildings, hangars, bollitrds, a fire hydrant, etc.) already exist inside the 57.5 ft
. TOFA
. For this reason, as noted in FAA's e-mail, "the current taxi-lane does not meet OFA standards
." This, along with BEH's plan to fuel itinerant aircraft offthe gate 3 taxi-lane makes FAA reluctant to approve a modification to standard, as evidenced by subsequent conversations with the federal agency. 

### In summary, looking at the two standards (fueling setbacks and TOFA), my concern is 

### the availability ofspace for BEH to establish and conduct fueling operations at, or beyond, the aircraftfueling setbacks,while also remaining outside the gate 3 TOFA. Simply put, there's notenough real estate availableto currentlycomplywith both standards. To remain in compliance with federal standards, I would therefore ask the NAC to consider any applicable lease opportunities moving forward.
1 The TOFA was discussed at the December 2012 NAC meeting, and the revision of OWD's fueling setback regulations

- to coincide with NFPA federal standards-was discussed at the May 8, 2013 NAC meeting.
# EXHIBIT 10.2

September 22, 2005

Mr. Steven J. DiMarco
1131 Dove Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317

Dear Steve:

We are pleased to confirm our offer of employment to you. The terms of our
offer are as follows:

|Position Title: |  | V.P. Marketing & Strategic Planning (Executive Officer)
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

|Reports to: |  | Kitty Iverson
|----------- |  | -------------

|Base Salary: |  | $150,000 on an annualized basis
|------------ |  | -------------------------------

|Bonus: |  | Bonus target of $50,000
|------ |  | -----------------------

|Stock Option Grant: |  | A Nonqualified Stock Option Grant of 10,000 shares
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------

|Start Date: |  | December 5, 2005
|----------- |  | ----------------

|Benefits Program: |  | As described in the Benefits Summary, plus an additional 80 hours
of PTO annually.
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Workplace Drug andAlcohol Policy: |  | CyberOptics maintains a drug and alcohol-free work environment. As
part of this policy, employment is contingent upon your satisfactorily passing a pre-employment drug - screening test. We will be
able to complete the start-up process after we have received these satisfactory results. Enclosed in this package is the
information you will need to complete this procedure.
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that nothing in this agreement constitutes a contract of employment with
CyberOptics. Employment with CyberOptics is on an at-will basis, which means that either you or the Company can
terminate the employment arrangement for any legal reason at any time. In the event of involuntary termination of employment with
CyberOptics for any reason other than misconduct, Mr. DiMarco will receive a severance package consisting of six months base
salary and payment for health insurance coverage through COBRA for six months. For the protection of both you and the Company, you
are asked to sign the enclosed Proprietary Information Agreement.

52

---

# Offer Letter page 2

Steve, we are pleased that you have accepted this opportunity to join
CyberOptics! The next few years in our growth will be truly exciting and we welcome your participation with us.

Sincerely,

|/s/   Kate Maher              |          | 
|----------------------------- | -------- | 
|Kate Maher                   
|                             
|                             
|/s/   Steven J. DiMarco       | 10/31/05 | 
|Accepted:   Steven J. DiMarco | Date    
|                             
|                             

Attachments:

Drug Screening Policy and Forms
Proprietary Information Agreement

53

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBreadboard stellar tracker system test reportBASD has, in the past, developed several unique position tracking algorithms for charge transfer device (CTD) sensors. These algorithms provide an interpixel transfer function with the following characteristics: (1) high linearity; (2) simplified track logic; (3) high gain; and (4) high noise rejection. A previous test program using the GE charge injection device (CID) showed that accuracy for BASD's breadboard was limited to approximately 2% of a pixel (1 sigma) whereas analysis and simulation indicated the limit should be less than 0.5% of a pixel, assuming the limit to be detector response and dark current noise. The test program was conducted under NASA contract No. NAS8-34263. The test approach for that program did not provide sufficient data to identify the sources of error and left open the amount of contribution from parameters such as image distribution, geometric distortion and system alignment errors.Document ID19840009098Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsKollodge, J. C.*(Ball Bros. Research Corp. Boulder, CO, United States)*Parrish, K. A.*(Ball Bros. Research Corp. Boulder, CO, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberTR83-25NASA-CR-170973NAS 1.26:170973Accession Number84N17166Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-34263Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840009098.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Aram Hovnanian, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 14, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve a term of 10 to 20 years. Judgment affirmed. Defendant was indicted and tried with two codefendants, Joseph A. Torre and Julia T. Villano, for manslaughter in the first degree, for causing the death of a young girl during the course of an abortion. The evidence adduced, including the testimony of medical experts, established: (1) that the defendant, believing he had caused the decedent to become pregnant, communicated with eodefendant Torre for the purpose of arranging an abortion; (2) that Torre induced the eodefendant Villano to perform the abortion; (3) that, in the absence of Torre and defendant, Villano performed the abortion by the insertion of a syringe containing a soap solution into decedent’s vagina; and (4) that death resulted from an air embolism caused by the abortion. The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, while it found the codefendants Torre and Villano guilty of abortion. Defendant contends that the inconsistent verdicts neces*819sítate a reversal of Ms conviction. This contention is without merit. The evidence amply supports the verdict against defendant. Under the circumstances here, the fact that the jury may have failed to do its duty with respect to the codefendants is no reason for reversing the verdict which it found against defendant *(People*v. *Cohen,*223 N. Y. 406, 429). If defendant had been indicted and tried alone, his conviction would be supported by the evidence *(People*v. *Eichner,*168 App. Div. 200). Consistency in the verdicts is not necessarily required *(People*v. *Hollenbeck,*9 A D 2d 983; *People*v. *Sciascia,*268 App. Div. 14, affd. 294 N. Y. 927). The defendant relies mainly on two eases *(People*v. *Monroe,*190 N. Y. 435; and *People*v. *Massett, 55*Hun 606). These eases are factually distinguishable. We find untenable the defendant’s other claims of error. In our opinion: (1) defendant was not prejudiced by the statements of counsel for the codefendant Villano; (2) the trial court correctly and satisfactorily charged the provision of section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, that it would be improper for the jury to draw any unfair inference or to speculate by reason of defendant’s failure to testify *(People*v. *Maimone,*9 A D 2d 780); (3) prejudicial error was not committed by the receipt into evidence of photographs showing the place where defendant buried the decedent’s body *(People*v. *Lewis,*7 A D 2d 732); and (4) the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. There is no claim that the prosecutor had indulged in unfair trial tactics with respect to defendant’s failure to testify in his own behalf. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### COLUMBIA REALTY CO., Respondent, v. SECHER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

Action by the Columbia Realty Company against Louis Seeher. From an order setting aside the verdict of a jury in favor of defendant, he appeals. Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside the verdict of a jury in favor of the tenant in summary proceedings instituted by a landlord to recover possession of demised premises for nonpayment of rent. The defense was an eviction from a portion of the demised premises. In a memorandum filed by the trial judge, one of the reasons given by him for setting aside the verdict was that “the defendant did not sustain the burden of proof. The preponderance of evidence and the quality of the same was with the landlord.” After a careful reading of the testimony in the record, we have arrived at the same conclusion as the trial judge, and deem him perfectly correct in his decision. Order affirmed, with costs to. abide event.