alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**I, Christopher A. Black, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Barge Line Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosures controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over the financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date:November 10, 2005     /s/ Christopher A. Black  Christopher A. Black  Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350),the undersigned officer of Guaranty Bancorp (the “Company”) herebycertifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 7, 2008

 

 
|   |   |   /s/ Daniel M. Quinn |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Daniel M. Quinn                 |
|   | Title: | *Chief Executive Officer*       |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
#### The Illinois State Board of Health *v.*The People *ex rel.*Millard F. Bailey.

*Opinion filed October 19, 1899.*

Appeals and *errors—appeal lies to Appellate Court if only the construction of a statute is involved.*In a case involving merely the construction of a statute, but not its validity, a writ of error to reverse the judgment of the circuit court should not be sued out in the Supreme Court if no other grounds of jurisdiction exist, but an appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court in the first instance.

Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. James Goggin, Judge, presiding'.

John A. Barnes, (H. J. Hamlin, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Justice Craig

delivered the opinion of the court:

This was a petition for *mandamus*brought by Millard Filmore Bailey in the circuit court of Cook county, against the State- Board of Health, to compel the board to issue him a license for the practice of medicine in this State. The defendant answered the petition, and on a hearing *513on the pleadings and evidence the court granted the writ. To reverse the judgment of the circuit court the State Board of Health sued out a writ of error in this court.

Under the act of June 16, 1887, (Hurd’s Stat. 1897, p. 1073,) the State Board of Health adopted certain rules under which persons might be permitted to practice medicine in this State. Upon an examination of the record it will appear that the only questions presented are,-—• first, what construction shall be placed on the statute as to the powers of the board; and second, whether the petitioner complied with the rules of the board so as to entitle him to a license to practice medicine in this State. It is therefore plain that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ of error; that the writ should have been sued out in the Appellate Court. In cases involving merely the construction of a statute,—not its validity,— and none of the other conditions existing necessary to give the right of appeal or writ of error directly from the trial court to the Supreme Court, the latter court will have no jurisdiction. The appeal in such case should in the first instance be taken to the Appellate Court. *(Gross*v. *People ex rel.*95 Ill. 366.) Since the Appellate Court was created this court has jurisdiction in civil cases in which the validity of a statute is involved, but where the mere construction of a statute arises the case must in the first instance go to the Appellate Court. Here no question is raised as to the validity of the statute, nor is it claimed that it violates any provision of the constitution. The plaintiff in error has therefore chosen the wrong tribunal. If the State board desires to review the judgment of the circuit court the writ of error must be sued out from the Appellate Court.

The writ of error will be dismissed.

*Writ dismissed.*
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28875]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 17, 2010. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Stockholders Confirmation (Corporation Ownership 
Confirmation (Partnership).
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    SBA Form Number's: 1405, 1405A.
    Description of Respondents: Newly Licensed SBIC'S.
    Responses: 600.
    Annual Burden: 600.
    Title: Microloan Program Electronic Reporting System (MPERS) 
(MPERsystem).
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    SBA Form Number: N/A.
    Description of Respondents: Microloan Program Intermediary Lenders.
    Responses: 2,500.
    Annual Burden: 625.
    Title: Loan Program business, Small Business Reporting and 
Recordkeeping and recordkeeping requirements.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    SBA Form Number's: 2276A, B, C, 2281.
    Description of Respondents: Application for an SBA Loan.
    Responses: 180.
    Annual Burden: 180.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-28875 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Thomas W. Stoelk, certify that:     1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Superior Well Services, Inc.;     2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions); a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.         By:  /s/ Thomas W. Stoelk   Thomas W. Stoelk    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   Date: August 8, 2006
32
Activity Report 2001

National Synchrotron Light Source

For the period October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001

Introduction

Science Highlights

Year in Review

Operations

Publications

Abstracts

Nancye Wright & Lydia Rogers

The National Synchrotron Light Source Department

is supported by the

Office of Basic Energy Sciences

United States Department of Energy

Washington, D.C.

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Brookhaven Science Associates, Inc.

Upton, New York 11973

Under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886

Mary Anne Corwin

Steven N. Ehrlich & Lisa M. Miller

Managing Editor

Science Editors

Production Assistants

Cover images

(clockwise from top left)

1. from Science Highlight by K.R. Rajashankar, M.R. Chance, S.K. Burley, J. Jiang, S.C. Almo, A. Bresnick, T. Dodatko, R. Huang, G. He,

H. Chen, M. Sullivan, J. Toomey, R.A. Thirumuruhan, W.A. Franklin, A. Sali, U. Pieper, N. Eswar, V. Ilyin, and L. McMahan, ìStructural

Genomics at the National Synchrotron Light Source,î page 2-30.

2. from Science Highlight by P. Coppens, G. Wu, C.D. Kim, S. Pillet, I. Novozhilova and W.K. Fullogar, ìExcited State Structure by TimeResolved X-Ray Diffraction at the SUNY X3 beamline at NSLS,î page 2-55.

3. from Science Highlight by Y. Lee, T. Vogt, J.A. Hriljac, J.B. Parise, and G. Artioli, ìFirst Structural Investigation of a Super-hydrated

Zeolite,î page 2-87.

4. from Science Highlight by K. McCall, A. Lanzirotti, and E.T. Rasbury, ìUranium (VI) Incorporation in Paleosol Calcite: Evidence for

Sequestration of Uranium on Geologic Time Scales,î page 2-94.

5. from Science Highlight by L. Mihaly, D. Talbayev, and G.L. Carr, ìElectron Spin Resonance with Far Infrared Light,î page 2-66.

6. from Science Highlight by X.J. Wang, ìSASE FEL Saturation Characterization at the ATF,î page 2-132.

Printed in the United States of America

Available from

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States

Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes

any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any

information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference

herein to any specific commerical product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency, contractor, or subcontractor thereof. The views and opinions of authors express herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government

or any agency, contractor, or subcontractor thereof.

National Synchrotron Light Source

ACTIVITY REPORT 2001
M. P. No. 79-266.

#### Metachem Resins Corporation *v.*Henry Oldham, *et al.*

Mr. Justice Weisberger did not participate.

*Valentino D. Lombardi,*for petitioner, *John P. Barylick,*for respondent.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
#### James E. Slack, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Emma L. Crossetta, *810Respondent.

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 13,1979, which is in favor of the defendant and against them, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted on the issues of whether the alleged neck and back pains were permanent and, if so, the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs, with costs to abide the event. In this case liability was conceded. The plaintiffs’ unrefuted evidence at trial indicates that the accident aggravated a pre-existing, but dormant, osteoarthritic and degenerative disc condition, resulting in persistent pain. The question of whether the pain was a permanent injury so as to breach the threshold of the no-fault law (see Insurance Law, § 671, subd 4; § 673, subd 1), was for the jury to decide (see *Cohen*v *Lizza,*63 AD2d 557). The trial court refused to charge the jury as requested by plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to the definition of permanency under the no-fault law (see 1 PJI [2d ed supp] 2:88A) and, instead, by way of special interrogatories, asked the jury to determine whether the injuries sustained by the injured plaintiff were permanent. The jury answered the question in the negative. Failure to define permanency to include the permanent operation of a body function or system with pain (see 1 PJI [2d ed supp] 2:88A), may have led the jury to believe erroneously that permanent pain did not amount to a permanent injury. Since a charge defining permanency to include permanent pain might have resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, a new trial on this issue is warranted. If, on the new trial, the jury determines that the pain is permanent, the issue of damages must be reached. After reading the colloquy between the trial court and counsel, and considering it as a whole, we find that plaintiffs’ counsel made a sufficient exception to the trial court’s failure to charge as requested so as to preserve the issue for appeal (see CPLR 4017, 4110-b, 5501, subd [a], par 3; see, also, *O’Neill v Cross County Hosp.,*61 AD2d 1008). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.a.


          CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


     We  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in  the
Registration  Statements Nos. 333-76616, 333-65013  and  333-6103
each on  Form  S-8 and to Registration Statement No. 333-45218 on
Form   S-3,  and in  the  Annual  Report  on  Form   10-KSB/A  of
Igene  Biotechnology, Inc. for the year ended December 31,   2003
of  our   report   dated   August 18,  2005,  relating   to   the
consolidated   financial   statements  of   Igene  Biotechnology,
Inc.

                                   /S/ STEGMAN & COMPANY
                                   ___________________________
                                       STEGMAN & COMPANY

Baltimore, Maryland
August 25, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr03093-001/LAC

CHARLES SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on May 25, 2010 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 4/30/10 Doc.# 278

RESPONSES:

 NONE on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 27 day of

th

May, 2010, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See Docs 189 and 244.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KRU MATTHEWS

,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 4 0 WAP 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of June , 2020, the Application for Summary Relief is

GRANTED , and the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED . The Application

for Stay is DISMISSED as moot.
LAW OFFICES OF 

RAYMOND P. FITZPATRICK, JR. 

1200 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 105 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35242 

October 14, 2015 

Electronically and by Overnight Delivery 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Petition for Amendment To Exemption No. 11545 Issued To 

Clean Energy Renewables, LLC Pursuant To Section 333 of 

The FAA Reform Act, Docket No. FAA-2015-0399 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

On May 11,2015, FAA granted the referenced Section 333 exemption to conduct aerial 

data collection to Clean Energy Renewables, LLC ("CER"). CER respectfully requests an 

amendment to authorize the use of additional UAS systems .. 

CER seeks approval to utilize the following UAS platforms manufactured by Sky Eye 

Innovations: 

Sky Eye T -Series UA V 

Sky Eye A-Series UAV 

Sky Eye OGI UA V 

Sky Eye Micro UA V 

These UAS platforms have not been previously reviewed by FAA. Technical specifications for 

each of the listed Sky Eye products are included in the confidential operating manual that is 

being filed with FAA by overnight delivery under separate cover. Also confidentially submitted 

is additional technical information and safety procedures in the format ofFAA Order 8130.34C 

Appendix D. To the extent not addressed in these documents, all operations will be conducted in 

accord with CER's current exemption and standard Section 333 operating procedures and 

conditions. 
October 14, 2014 

Page2 

The gross weight of each of these units is under 10 lbs., with a maximum gross weight, 

including payload, of under 20 lbs. CER requests that the Secretary find, in consideration of the 

size, weight, speed and limited operating area associated with these aircraft and their operation, 

that the aircraft meet the conditions of Section 3 3 3 and relief from 14 CFR part 21, to the extent 

needed, is appropriate. 

CER requests authority to utilize the Sky Eye UAS platforms listed above in the same 

manner for aerial data collection and subject to all other conditions as set forth in CER's 

Exemption No. 11545. 

CER believes the requested amendment will not set any precedent or raise any new 

issues. We request that FAA dispense with publication of the summary of this petition in the 

Federal Register and grant the requested amendment on a summary basis. 

An amendment to Exemption No. 11545 to authorize use of each of the Sky Eye UAS 

systems listed above is respectfully requested. 

Yours very truly, 

Is/ Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 

Raymond P. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 

Attorney for Clean Energy Renewables, LLC 

RPFjr/deb
§ 2045.1753 Authority to accept gratuitous services. ( a ) State Directors, Director, Personnel Division, and Director, Finance Office, are hereby authorized to accept and utilize gratuitous services offered by the governmental agencies listed in § 2045.1752(a).
( b ) An offer received by an FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 State or County Office from a source listed in § 2045.1752(b) shall be transmitted to the National Office, Attention: Director, Personnel Division, for decision. The offer will be accompanied by copies of the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws (if the organization is incorporated), a statement that the organization accepts the conditions set forth in the Agreement Form, and evidence that the organization is financially able to meet the required fiscal obligations of the agreement.
#### § 160.9 Destructively distilled wood turpentine.

The designation “destructively distilled wood turpentine” shall refer to the kind of spirits of turpentine prepared from the distillate obtained in the destructive distillation (carbonization) of wood, and commonly known prior to the passage of the act as destructively distilled wood turpentine or D.D. wood turpentine.
#### § 1720.16 Environmental review requirements.

Guarantees made under this subpart are subject to the environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970.

[81 FR 11026, Mar. 2, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1956.144 [Reserved]