alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR, v. J. H. THAYER MARTIN, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT.

Argued November 15, 1938

Decided March 6, 1939.

Before Justices Case, Donges and Porter.

For the prosecutor, *Charles Hershenstein, Edward J. O’Mara*and *James A. Hamill.*

For the respondent, *David T. Wilentz,*attorney-general, *Herbert, J. Hannoch, John Solan*and *Morris Weinstein.*

Per Curiam.

These cases are on three writs of *certiorari*which bring up certificates of apportionment made by the State Tax Commissioner under chapters 7 and 8, *Pamph. L.*1938, and present for review the constitutionality of those statutes and the *270legality of the apportionments of gross receipts of the Public Service Co-ordinated Transport, the Public Service Electric and Gas Company and the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company. The apportionments made by the Tax Commissioner are affirmed and the writs are dismissed for the reasons given in our determination of *The City of Camden*v. *State Board of Tax*Appeals, 122 *N. J. L.*253, and of *The*Mayor, &c., *of Hoboken*v. Martin, *State Tax*Commissioner, *et*al., 122 *Id.*264, filed simultaneously herewith; without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                         8,117    
<SECURITIES>                                   7        
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,956    
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (866)    
<INVENTORY>                                    10,457   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,573   
<PP&E>                                         47,448   
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (22,870) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,684   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,966    
<BONDS>                                        0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,628 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,684 
<SALES>                                        12,576 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,083 
<CGS>                                          8,817  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,911 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (57)   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                229    
<INCOME-TAX>                                   19     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            210    
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0      
<CHANGES>                                      0      
<NET-INCOME>                                   210    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .03    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .03    
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 13
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 13 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 13.1 Scope. The procedures in this part apply when— ( a ) The Commissioner concludes, as a matter of discretion, that it is in the public interest to hold a public hearing before a Public Board of Inquiry (*Board*) with respect to any matter before FDA;
( b ) Under specific sections of this chapter a matter before FDA is subject to a hearing before a Board; or
( c ) Under § 12.32, a person who has a right to an opportunity for a formal evidentiary public hearing waives that opportunity and requests that a Board act as an administrative law tribunal concerning the matters involved, and the Commissioner decides to accept this request.
§ 418.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see Appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a**-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)

** **

I, Mark L. Kleifges, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Amendment No. 3 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of HospitalityProperties Trust;

 

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

 

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

 
| Date:  July 25, 2008 | /s/ Mark L.  Kleifges                  |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                      | Mark L.  Kleifges                      |
|                      | Treasurer  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 170 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 170.104 Action on a premarket notification for a food contact substance (FCN). ( a ) If the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not object to an FCN within the 120-day period for FDA review, the FCN becomes effective.
( b ) If an FCN is complete when received, the 120-day review period begins on the date FDA receives the FCN. ( 1 ) If any element required under § 170.101 is missing from an FCN, then FDA will not accept that FCN and FDA will send an FCN nonacceptance letter to the manufacturer or supplier. If the manufacturer or supplier submits the missing information before FDA sends an FCN nonacceptance letter, the 120-day review period begins on the date of receipt of the missing information.
( 2 ) If FDA accepts an FCN, then FDA will acknowledge in writing its receipt of that FCN.
( c ) Objection to an FCN: ( 1 ) If FDA objects to an FCN, then FDA will send an FCN objection letter. The date of the letter will be the date of FDA's objection for purposes of section 409(h)(2)(A) of the act.
( 2 ) If FDA objects to an FCN within the 120-day period for FDA review, the FCN will not become effective.
( 3 ) FDA may object to an FCN if any part of FDA's 120-day review occurs during a period when this program is not funded as required in section 409(h)(5) of the act.
( d ) If FDA and a manufacturer or supplier agree that the notifier may submit a food additive petition proposing the approval of the food contact substance for the use in the manufacturer's or supplier's FCN, FDA will consider that FCN to be withdrawn by the manufacturer or supplier on the date the petition is received by FDA.
Editorial Note on Part 14
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 14 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 14.122 Functions of TEPRSSC. ( a ) In performing its function of advising the Commissioner, TEPRSSC— ( 1 ) May propose electronic product radiation safety standards to the Commissioner for consideration;
( 2 ) Provides consultation to the Commissioner on all performance standards proposed for consideration under 21 U.S.C. 360kk; and
( 3 ) May make recommendations to the Commissioner on any other matters it deems necessary or appropriate in fulfilling the purposes of the act.
( b ) Responsibility for action on performance standards under 21 U.S.C. 360kk rests with the Commissioner, after receiving the advice of TEPRSSC.
[44 FR 22351, Apr. 13, 1979, as amended at 78 FR 17087, Mar. 20, 2013]
AAM-11-470-E October 26, 2011

Exemption No. 10378 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1055

Ms. Judith A. Griffith Horizon Helicopters, Inc.

2035 Sunset Lake Road Newark, DE 19702

Dear Ms. Griffith:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 29, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Horizon Helicopters, Inc. (Horizon) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Horizon to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Horizon.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Horizon Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Horizon to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Horizon Helicopters, Inc. are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the Horizon Helicopters, Inc. part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 32.2


Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southwall Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mallorie Burak, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chaper 63 of Title 18, United States Code) 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.
 
 
 Date:    May 11, 2010
By:
/s/ Mallorie BurakMallorie BurakVice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133452 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133452 COA: 264419 Ingham CC: 04-001216-FH BRANDON LEE SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0711 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 18, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,216)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-81,134-02
IN RE BRANDON TREVELLE CAINES, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1274701-A IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has f

iled a motion for leave to file an application for a wr it of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 183rd D istrict Court of Harris C ounty challeng ing cause number 1274701-A
on November 4, 2013. The trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues in that cause on November 19, 2013. This application has y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. Respondent, the J udg e of the 183rd District Court of Har ris County , shall file a response with this Court by having the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such habea s corpus application. I n the alterna tive, Respondent may resolve the issues set out in the order desig nating issues and then have2

the District Clerk submit the rec ord on such application. I n either case , Respondent’s answe r shall be submitt ed within 30 day s of the date of this o rd er . T h i s appli cation for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abe y ance until R espondent ha s submitt ed a r esponse.

Filed: Marc h 18, 2015 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 31.01
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 2002

I, RICHARD A. STEINKE, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the year ended June 30, 2005 of Amerityre
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: September 16, 2005


/S/Richard A. Steinke
Richard A. Steinke
President and Chief Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Level                8                Systems, Inc. as of, and for the periods presented in the Report. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:                /s/   John                P.                Broderick                          |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John                P. Broderick                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|   | Chief                Executive and Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | March                31, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |