alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RECEI'lED 

Certificate of Service HEARING DOCKET 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, 

postage pre-paid, via ~Nt;\\1 M &.\ lr-usPS, the Supplemental Answer to 

Interrogatories and all attachments addressed as follows: 

Christopher Merrill, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.3 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles CA 90009-2007 

TEL 310-725-7105 

FAX 310-725-6816 

I also certify that I sent via USPS, a copy of this Certificate of Service to the 

following recipients: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building Suite 2W1 000 

Dennis McGlynn, respondent 

659 Dorothy Way 

Auburn CA 95603-3862 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310} 

Washington D.C. 20590 

RECEIVED 

MAR 0 5 2n14 

HEARING DOCKET 

I also certify that I sent a copy of this certificate of service via email to: 

Patricia Matthews Staff Assistant (Patricia. Matthews@ Dot. Gov) 

P.O. Box 1416 

Aurora IL 60507 
FDMS NO. FAA 2013·0615 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL -VIA US MAIL 

Christopher Merrill, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.3 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles CA 90009-2007 

TEL 31 0· 725· 71 05 

FAX 310-725-6816 

RECEIVED 

MAR 0 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

ONE COPY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ONLY -VIA US MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attention : Hearing Docket Clerk , AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building -suite 2W1 000 

Dennis McGlynn Respondent 

659 Dorothy Way 

Auburn, CA 95603-3862 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) 

Washington D.C. 20590 

TEL 202·366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202·366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY- VIA EMAIL 

PATRICIA MATTHEWS STAFF ASSISTANT (202) 366 5251 

(PATRICIA.MATTHEWS@DOT.GOV)
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1



                    [Letterhead of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP]


                                           April 21, 1998



SeaMED Corporation
14500 Northeast 87th Street
Redmond, Washington 98052-3431

         Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8 of SeaMED Corporation;
              SeaMED Corporation 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel to SeaMED Corporation (the "Company") in
connection with the filing of the above-referenced Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement") relating to the registration of 100,000 additional
shares (the "Shares") of Common Stock, no par value per share, of the Company
issuable under the Company's 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. In connection
therewith, we have reviewed the Company's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws,
minutes of appropriate meetings, a copy of the Plan and such other matters we
deemed appropriate.

         Based on that review, it is our opinion that the Shares will be, when
sold pursuant to the terms contemplated by the Registration Statement, validly
issued, fully paid and non-assessable under the Washington Business Corporation
Act.

         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to all references to our firm included in or made a
part of the Registration Statement.


                                       Very truly yours,

                                       PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP

                                       /s/ Mark R. Beatty

                                       By
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Mark R. Beatty
§ 507.12 Applicability of this part to the holding and distribution of human food by-products for use as animal food. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements of this part do not apply to by-products of human food production, or the off-farm packing and holding of raw agricultural commodities, that are packed or held by that human food facility for distribution as animal food if: ( 1 ) ( i ) The human food facility is subject to and in compliance with subpart B of part 117 of this chapter and in compliance with all applicable human food safety requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and implementing regulations; or
( ii ) For the off-farm packing and holding of produce (as defined in part 112 of this chapter), the human food facility is subject to and in compliance with § 117.8 of this chapter and in compliance with all applicable human food safety requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and implementing regulations; and
( 2 ) The human food facility does not further manufacture or process the by-products intended for use as animal food.
( b ) The human food by-products for use as animal food identified in paragraph (a) of this section must be held and distributed by that facility in accordance with §§ 507.28 and 117.95 of this chapter.
# L_2019318EN.01018501.xml

| 10.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/185 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/185

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/451 of 19 March 2019 on the harmonised standards for construction products drafted in support of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(Official Journal of the European Union L 77 of 20 March 2019)

On page 82, in Annex I, in the table, in the fourth column ‘Beginning of the coexistence period (dd.mm.yyyy.)’, entries 1 to 6:

for:

‘xx.yy.2019’,

read:

‘
  20.3.2019
  ’.

On page 82, in Annex I, in the table, in the fifth column ‘End of the coexistence period (dd.mm.yyyy.)’, entries 3 to 6:

for:

‘xx.yy.2020’,

read:

‘
  20.3.2020
  ’.

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 314

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

#### § 314.650 Termination of requirements.

If FDA determines after approval under this subpart that the requirements established in §§ 314.610(b)(2), 314.620, and 314.630 are no longer necessary for the safe and effective use of a drug product, FDA will so notify the applicant. Ordinarily, for drug products approved under § 314.610, these requirements will no longer apply when FDA determines that the postmarketing study verifies and describes the drug product's clinical benefit. For drug products approved under § 314.610, the restrictions would no longer apply when FDA determines that safe use of the drug product can be ensured through appropriate labeling. FDA also retains the discretion to remove specific postapproval requirements upon review of a petition submitted by the sponsor in accordance with § 10.30 of this chapter.
# LI2019046EN.01000301.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | LI 46/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

LI 46/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/271

of 18 February 2019

amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 20 September 2016 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 20 September 2016 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 (1).

| (2) | In view of the continued threat posed by ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, one person should be added to the list of persons, groups, undertakings and entities set out in the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the continued threat posed by ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them, one person should be added to the list of persons, groups, undertakings and entities set out in the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693.

| (3) | Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2019.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 of 20 September 2016 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them and repealing Common Position 2002/402/CFSP (OJ L 255, 21.9.2016, p. 25).

1

---

ANNEX

The following person is added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693:

| ‘4. | Brahim el KHAYARI; date of birth: 7 May 1992; place of birth: Nîmes (France); nationality: French.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘4.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-24-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1998
<CASH>                                             994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,624
<INVENTORY>                                      4,695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,094
<PP&E>                                          17,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,165
<BONDS>                                         98,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,959
<SALES>                                         35,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,801
<CGS>                                           13,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,062)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,352)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
        
<FN>
<F1>
The Company has not disclosed EPS as there is no public market for its common 
equity. However, the Company does have publicly traded senior unsecured notes.
</FN>

</TABLE>
38802.

#### BROCK v. SIMPSON.

Decided May 12, 1961

Rehearing denied June 5, 1961.

*801
      *Charles W. Anderson, Oze R. Horton, Melvin Pazol,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Linkous, Jr., Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

1. “The situation of the retailer and consumer of packed products is properly governed by the rules of negligence law. The retailer owes to the consumer the duty to supply goods packed by reliable manufacturers, and such as are without imperfections that may be discovered by an exercise of the care, skill, and experience of dealers in such products generally. This is the measure of the retailer’s duty; and if he has discharged it, he should not be mulcted in damages because injuries may be produced by unwholesomeness of the goods. As to hidden imperfections, the consumer must be deemed to have relied on the care of the packer or manufacturer or the warranty which is held to be implied by the latter.” *Howard v. Jacobs’ Pharmacy Co., 55*Ga. App. 163, 164 (189 S. E. 373); *Fleetwood v. Swift,*27 Ga. App. 502 (108 S. E. 909). “If the goods sold are in the original package sealed and unbroken, and it is a perfect appearing package, and it is impossible, in the practical use of the package in the retail trade, to discover the hidden unwholesomeness or imperfection without breaking the package, and the dealer has no positive knowledge, or notice amounting to imputed knowledge, of the hidden imperfection, ordinary care does not require the dealer to open the same, and as a matter of law he would not *802be negligent under these circumstances.” *Davis v. Williams,*58 Ga. App. 274, 279 (198 S. E. 357).

Here the petitioner in selecting the Pepsi Cola drink acted on his own judgment as to the reliability of the manufacturer. *Howard v. Jacobs’ Pharmacy Co.,*55 Ga. App. 163, supra; *Ray v. Burbank,*61 Ga. 505 (34 Am. Rep. 103). There was no duty on the retailer Simpson to open and inspect the capped bottle containing the beverage which the petitioner called for. It cannot be inferred from the allegations in the petition that the claimed deleterious, foreign and harmful substance in the Pepsi Cola drink was of such nature and content as to amount to a defect which a reasonably prudent dealer should have discovered before delivering it to the customer. A defect which is identifiable only by taste is entirely different from one such as particles of glass which are visible through the transparent glass bottle and through the transparent contents. *Davis v. Williams,*58 Ga. App. 274, supra. From all the facts pleaded we think the conclusion is clear that here the alleged defect was not reasonably observable. The court below . properly sustained the demurrer filed by Paul Simpson, d/b/a Simpson’s Food Town Stores.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C.J., and Bell, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      13,709,646
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  892,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,602,626
<PP&E>                                       5,971,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                (54,235)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,520,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          180,715
<BONDS>                                      1,376,378
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,504
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,903,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,520,021
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               731,136
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,326,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,595,255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,591,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,591,069)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Keith Stentiford, certify that

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SpescomSoftware Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on 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 designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting

 

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2006 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ Keith Stentiford           |   |
| Keith Stentiford               |
|                           |
| Chief Executive Officer        |

 

----
38849.

#### BECKHAM v. THE STATE.

Decided May 17, 1961.

*720
      *W. E. Mull, O. L. Crumbley,*for plaintiff in error.

*William M. West, Solicitor-General, Jack J. Gautier,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The only question here involved is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty. Sodomy is defined as “ . . . the carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature, by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman.” *Code*§ 26-5901. “The carnal knowledge necessary to constitute this offense (sodomy) is the same that is required in the case of rape. In this offense, as in rape, the crime is complete on proof of penetration. . . And ‘a conviction of sodomy cannot be sustained, the evidence not showing penetration.’ ” *Wharton v. State,*58 Ga. App. 439 (198 S. E. 823). The defendant here contends that the State has not proved penetration and thus failed to prove the corpus delicti of this crime. It will be noted that the State’s proof of the corpus delicti consists of circumstantial evidence, statements made as part of the res gestae, and the defendant’s confession. The confession offered by the State, and unchallenged by the defendant, admits the essential elements of the crime, including the penetration into the rectum of the defendant. Such a confession is direct evidence. The statement of the other party at or near the time of the act, made in the presence of the defendant and acknowledged as true by him at such time, together with the physical facts sworn to by the officers, offers ample corroboration of the defendant’s confession. The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. *Sutton v. State,*17 Ga. App. 713, 714 (88 S. E. 122); *Underwood v. State,*51 Ga. App. 735, 736 (181 S. E. 500); *McVeigh v. State,*205 Ga. 326 (53 S. E. 2d 462). “The law does not require that the corpus delicti be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by independent evidence as a condition precedent to the consideration by the jury of a confession, but the confession itself may; legally and properly be considered as a part of the proof of the corpus delicti.” *Logue v. State,*198 Ga. 672 (32 S. E. 2d 397).

The verdict being authorized by the evidence, the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., andFrankum, J., concur.*