alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

    Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
  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 on Form 10-KSB of WARP Technology
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Malcolm Coster, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


/s/  Malcolm Coster
---------------------------------------
Malcolm Coster, Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer

Date:  October 14, 2003
Exhibit 10.4

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AMENDED AND

RESTATED FUJITSU DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

DATED DECEMBER 21, 2005

This AMENDMENT
NO. 2 (this Amendment No. 2) to the Amended and Restated Fujitsu Distribution Agreement dated December 21, 2005, as amended effective as of October 1, 2007, originally entered into between Spansion Inc., a Delaware
corporation (Spansion) and Fujitsu Limited, a Japanese corporation (Fujitsu) and succeeded to by Fujitsu Microelectronics Limited, a Japanese corporation (FML) effective as of March 21, 2008 (the
Agreement), is entered into as of the dates set forth below and effective as of September 30, 2008.

Whereas, Spansion and
FML wish to further extend the Agreement, it is agreed that the Agreement shall be modified as follows:

1. The first sentence of
Section 20.1 Term of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

This Agreement will be
effective as of the Effective Date, and will continue in full force and effect until the earlier of (a) the effective date of a new, successor distribution agreement between Spansion Japan Limited and Fujitsu Electronics Inc. (New
Agreement) or (b) January 25, 2009, unless terminated as set forth in this Section 20 (Term).

All
terms and conditions of the Agreement not specifically modified by this Amendment No. 2 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



|                  |  |              |  |                                  |  |        |  |                                
|----------------- |  | ------------ |  | -------------------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------
|Spansion Inc.     |  |              |  | Fujitsu Microelectronics Limited
|                  |  |             
|/s/    Jeff Davis |  |              |  | /s/    Koichi Ishizaka          
|Name:             |  | Jeff Davis   |  |                                  |  | Name:  |  | Koichi Ishizaka                
|Title:            |  | Executive VP |  |                                  |  | Title: |  | Corporate Senior Vice President
|Date:             |  | 10/2/08      |  |                                  |  | Date:  |  | September 26, 2008
§ 1710.152 Primary support documents. The following primary support documents and studies must be prepared by the borrower for approval by RUS in order to support a loan application: ( a ) *Load forecast.* The load forecast provides the borrower and RUS with an understanding of the borrower's future system loads, the factors influencing those loads, and estimates of future loads. The load forecast provides a basis for projecting annual electricity (kWh) sales and revenues, and for engineering estimates of plant additions required to provide reliable service to meet the forecasted loads. Subpart E of this part contains the information to be included in a load forecast and when an approved load forecast is required.
( b ) *Construction work plan (CWP).* The CWP shall specify and document the capital investments required to serve a borrower's planned new loads, improve service reliability and quality, and service the changing needs of existing loads. The requirements for a CWP are set forth in subpart F of this part.
( c ) *Long-range financial forecasts.* RUS encourages borrowers to maintain on a current basis a long-range financial forecast, which should be used by a borrower's board of directors and manager to guide the system toward its financial goals. The forecast submitted in support of a loan application shall show the projected results of future actions planned by the board of directors. The requirements for a long-range financial forecast are set forth in subpart G of this part.
( d ) *Environmental review requirements.* A borrower must comply with the environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970.
( e ) *EE Program work plan (EEWP).* In the case of a loan application to finance an Eligible Energy Efficient Program, an EE Program work plan shall be prepared in lieu of a traditional CWP required pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. The requirements for an EEWP are set forth in § 1710.255 and in subpart H of this part.
[57 FR 1053, Jan. 9, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 14786, Mar. 20, 2000; 78 FR 73366, Dec. 5, 2013; 81 FR 11026, Mar. 2, 2016]
#### § 1700.150 OMB Control Number.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and have been assigned OMB control number 0572-0147.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**AFFINITYGROUP HOLDING, INC.STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify as follows:

 

1.                                       Thisstatement is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connectionwith the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       ThePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.                                       Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof dates and for the periods indicated therein.

 

 

Date:  August 3, 2005

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group Holding,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### § 1730.20 General.

Each electric program distribution, transmission and generation borrower (as defined in § 1710.2) shall operate and maintain its system in compliance with prudent utility practice, in compliance with its loan documents, and in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and orders, shall maintain its systems in good repair, working order and condition, and shall make all needed repairs, renewals, replacements, alterations, additions, betterments and improvements, in accordance with applicable provisions of the borrower's security instrument. Each borrower is responsible for on-going operations and maintenance programs, individually or regionally performing a system security Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (VRA), establishing and maintaining an Emergency Restoration Plan (ERP), maintaining records of the physical, cyber and electrical condition and security of its electric system and for the quality of services provided to its customers. The borrower is also responsible for all necessary inspections and tests of the component parts of its system, and for maintaining records of such inspections and tests. Each borrower shall budget sufficient resources to operate and maintain its system and annually exercise its ERP in accordance with the requirements of this part. An actual manmade or natural event on the borrowers system in which a borrower utilizes a significant portion of its ERP shall count as an annual exercise for that calendar year, provided that after conclusion of the event, the borrower verifies accuracy of the emergency points-of-contact (POC) and the associated contact numbers as listed in their ERP. For portions of the borrower's system that are not operated by the borrower, if any, the borrower is responsible for ensuring that the operator is operating and maintaining the system properly in accordance with the operating agreement.

[69 FR 60540, Oct. 12, 2004]
----

----

|                                                |                 |     | Proportion of Ownership   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------|----------|---------------------------|
|                                                |                 |     | Interest and Voting Power |
| Name of Company                                     | Principal Activity   | Location | Held at June 30, 2011     |
|                                                |                 |     |                      |
| Impact Active Team Ltd.                             | Consulting           | Israel   | 100%                      |
| TPDS Ltd.                                           | Medical              | Israel   | 94%                       |
| Meizam Arad Investments Ltd.              | Financing            | Israel   | 99%                       |
| Meizam – Advanced Enterprise Center Arad Ltd. | Industrial Incubator | Israel   | 72%                       |

----

----
§ 1738.255 Default and deobligation. If a default under the loan or loan/grant combination documents occurs and such default has not been cured within the timeframes established in the Award documents, the Applicant acknowledges that the Agency may, depending on the seriousness of the default, take any of the following actions: ( a ) To the greatest extent possible recover the maximum amount of grant and loan funds;
( b ) De-obligate all funds that have not been advanced or demonstrate an insufficient level of performance or fraudulent spending; and
( c ) Reallocate recovered funds to the extent possible.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10077 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BRADLEY RAY SARGENT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-75-A-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bradley Ray Sargent contends that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice and denied him a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The standard of review with respect to upward adjustments for obstruction of justice and with respect to the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment is "clearly
erroneous." See United States v. Winn , 948 F.2d 145, 161 (5thNo. 95-10077 -2- Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 976 (1992); United States v. Watkins , 911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1990). Section 3C1.1 of the sentencing guidelines specifically contemplates the use of the obstruction enhancement when a defendant either obstructs or "attempts" to obstruct justice. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The district court made a separate factual finding at sentencing that it was "satisfied that [Sargent's] goal was to cause those people to give false testimony or a false affidavit in exchange for restitution, so to speak. I consider that to be obstruction of justice." Even viewed in the light most favorable to Sargent, the affidavits evidence Sargent's attempt to obstruct justice. A defendant who receives an offense-level enhancement for obstruction of justice qualifies for a reduction based on acceptance of responsibility only in extraordinary circumstances. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). "Conduct resulting in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 . . . ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct." Id. The district court did not clearly err in determining that Sargent's conduct warranted the obstruction-of-justice enhancement and that he was not entitled to a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Sargent's sentence is AFFIRMED.
#### Commonwealth *vs.*Thruston.

Indictment. Case 15.

Error to the Shelby Circuit; Todd, Judge.

*Witness. Evidence. Slaves, importation of.*

November 10.

Chief Justice Robertson,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Thruston was indicted for importing slaves into this state in violation of the statute of 1815, and a verdict and judgment having been rendered in his favor, the commonwealth complains that tiie circuit court erred in refusing to compel a witness to testify to facts against the; accused, which he (the witness.) said, on his oath, would operate to his own prejudice.

The counsel for the defendant insists, that the witness was not hound to testify, and that, if he had been, the judgment should not be .reversed, because *63"the indictment does not charge any offence denounced by law.

A wilness will not, merely beoau«e he m.iy subject himself to a civil suit, be excused from testifying.

Under act of 18)5, *importation*of si,ives into this state, is one offence and *selling*of themisanolher'

Denny, Átto. Gen. for Com’lth; *Richardson*for defendant.

1st. We are of opinion, that the witness should have been required to state, whether the defendant in error imported the slaves, or not, even though he swore that he would be liable for half the fine, if the defendant should be found guilty, and could not, *in his own*opinion, answer the questions propounded to him, without prejudice to his defence to a prosecution pending against himself for the same offence charged against the defendant. He might have answered either affirmatively, or negatively, the question, “Do you know that Dr. Thruston (the defendant in error,) brought slaves from Virginia, and when?” without implicating himself; and as to hisobligation to pay half of any fine assessed against the defendant, that, for aught that appears, may have been merely civil, and a witness will not be excused merely because he may subject himself to a civil suit.

2nd. The indictment is good. Importation alone may be an indictable offence; a subsequent sale is not a necessary ingredient in the constitution of an offence prohibited by the act of 1815, (II Dig. 1162.) The importation is one offence, the selling is another; for each of which a distinct penalty is denounced.

But the act declares that, on an indictment for importing, proof of *both importation and sale shall throw on the accused the burthen of shewing that he is excused by being brought within some one of the exceptions prescribed •in the act.*This construction of the act will, alone, give harmony and effect to all its provisions.

Wherefore, as the circuit erred in refusing to compel the witness to answer the question which has-been quoted; the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70259-70260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28728]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory 
Committee (SAAC) of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
(Export-Import Bank).

SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by 
Public Law 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors 
on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed 
to support the expansion of the Bank's

[[Page 70260]]

financial commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee, 
and insurance programs of the Bank. Further, the committee shall make 
recommendations on how the Bank can facilitate greater support by U.S. 
commercial banks for trade with Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Time and Place: December 2, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 1143, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Presentation on recent developments in Sub-Saharan Africa 
markets by Export Import Bank staff; an update on the Bank's on-going 
business development initiatives in the region; and Committee 
discussion of current challenges and opportunities for U.S. exporters.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes 
auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special 
accommodations, please contact, prior to December 2, 2010, Richard 
Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 
565-3515 or TDD (202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Richard Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 
565-3515.

Jonathon Cordone,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-28728 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
#### POLHEMUS v. POLHEMUS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by Elsa C. Polhemus against Horace G. Polhemus and others. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal. Dismissed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, RICH, and MILDER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, without costs. See Polhemus v. Polhemus (decided herewith) 100 N. Y. Supp. 263.
**Exhibit11.1**

 

**ML Macadamia Orchards, L.P.**

**Computation of Net Income (Loss) per Class AUnit**

(in thousands, except per unit data)

 
| ** **                                          | ** ** | **2004**   | ** ** | **2003**   | ** ** | **2002**   | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| ** **                                          | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                   |       | $          | (1,649     | )          | $          | 69         |       | $ | (480 | ) |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Class A Unitholders (ownership  percentage)         |       | x          | 99         | %          | x          | 99         | %          | X | 99 | % |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Net income (loss) allocable to  Class A Unitholders |       | $          | (1,632     | )          | $          | 68         |       | $ | (475 | ) |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Class A Units outstanding                           |       | 7,500      |       | 7,500      |       | 7,500      |       |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Net income (loss) per Class A  Unit                 |       | $          | (0.22      | )          | $          | 0.01       |       | $ | (0.06 | ) |
|                                                     |            |            |            |            |            |            |            |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

1

----
APARTMENT OF 

-;,!;,};;|j^f^.OiW^ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

^..'•..|\u] JhhnAl.UiMb FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

..... _ . ^ _, OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

/UliULl 12 P hi n WASHINGTON, D.C. PpCEJVED 

^ SEP 3 Q 2011 

J. Randolph Babbitt, ADMINISTRATOR, ) MFARING DOCKET 

Federal Aviation Administration, ) rli^' ^ 

Complainant. ) 20nEAI 10025 ^ 

V. ) Judge; Not yet assigned 

) 

LIBERTY JET MANAGEMENT ) 

CORPORATION, ) Hearing Date: Not yet assigned 

) . Hearing Location; Not yet assigned 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ANSWER 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Liberty Jet Management Corporation, by and through 

undersigned counsel, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.209, and hereby answers the 

Administrator's Complaint dated September 1, 2011. 

Respondent hereby requests that the hearing on this matter be held in 

Cleveland. Ohio, where the incident took place. For the convenience of the witnesses. 

1. Respondent admits Section I of the Administrator's Complaint. Respondent 

admits the following paragraphs in Section II of the Administrator's Complaint; 1, 

2,3,4,5,6, 10. and 11. 

2. Respondent denies the following paragraphs in Section II of the Administrator's 

Complaint: 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 to the extent that the Administrator implies that 

Respondent knew, or should have known, of engine damage that was not visible 

during a pre-llight inspection. Respondent denies Sections III and IV of the 
Administrator's Complaint. Any matter not specifically admitted by Respondent 

is denied. 

Respondent denies violating any of the Federal Aviation Regulations cited by the 

Administrator in the Administrator's Order and Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

The Administrator fails to state a claim, as there is no statute or regulation which 

requires an engine tear down following a bird strike when a preflight visual 

inspection does not reveal any damage. 

The regulations cited by the Administrator are unconsiitutionally vague and 

therefore they deny the Respondent due process of law as guaranteed by the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Dated: September 29. 201 1 

Kent S. Jackson, Esq. 

Jackson& Wade, L.L.C. 

21628 Midland Drive 

Shawnee, KS 66218 

Tel: 913 338-1700 

Fax; 913 338-1755 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served via Federal Express, postage prepaid, an 

original and one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 2014 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 

Tcl; 202-267-3111 

Fax:202-267-5047 

And, further, that I have this date served via Federal Express, postage prepaid, a copy of 

the foregoing Answer addressed to; 

Zachary M. Herman, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 

One Aviation Plaza. Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3258 

Fax: 718 995-5699 

Dated: September 29, 2011 

Kent S. Jackson, Esq. 

Jackson & Wade, L.L.C. 

21628 Midland Drive 

Shawnee, KS 66218 

Tel: 913 338-1700 

Fax:913 338-1755