alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1311.215 Internal audit trail. ( a ) The pharmacy application provider must establish and implement a list of auditable events. The auditable events must, at a minimum, include the following: ( 1 ) Attempted unauthorized access to the pharmacy application, or successful unauthorized access to the pharmacy application where the determination of such is feasible.
( 2 ) Attempted or successful unauthorized modification or destruction of any information or records required by this part, or successful unauthorized modification or destruction of any information or records required by this part where the determination of such is feasible.
( 3 ) Interference with application operations of the pharmacy application.
( 4 ) Any setting of or change to logical access controls related to the dispensing of controlled substance prescriptions.
( 5 ) Attempted or successful interference with audit trail functions.
( 6 ) For application service providers, attempted or successful annotation, alteration, or destruction of controlled substance prescriptions or logical access controls related to controlled substance prescriptions by any agent or employee of the application service provider.
( b ) The pharmacy application must analyze the audit trail at least once every calendar day and generate an incident report that identifies each auditable event.
( c ) The pharmacy must determine whether any identified auditable event represents a security incident that compromised or could have compromised the integrity of the prescription records. Any such incidents must be reported to the pharmacy application service provider, if applicable, and the Administration within one business day.
Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION



I,
D. Kyle Cerminara, certify that:



|1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 of
    Ballantyne Strong, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                    
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|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.



| | By: | /s/
    D. KYLE CERMINARA                                                                                      
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | D.
                                         Kyle Cerminara
        Chairman
        and Chief Executive Officer



April
26, 2018
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
       Name                                      Jurisdiction of Incorporation
       ----                                      -----------------------------
<S>                                              <C>
Sanchez Mining, Inc.                                      Delaware

Cobre de Suaqui Verde, S.A. de C.V.                       Mexico

Sanou Mining Corporation                                  Bahamas
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report dated March 23, 1998, included in the Meridian
Industrial Trust, Inc. 1997 Form 10-K into Meridian Industrial Trust's, Inc.
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 (file numbers 333-24579 and
333-42081) and on Form S-8 (file number 333-24583).



                                   /s/ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
San Francisco, California
March 31, 1998


                                        - 44 -
[No. 16020-3-III.

Division Three.

December 18, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William T. Porter, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 95-8-00472-1, Bart Vandegrift, J. Pro Tern., entered August 13, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Kurtz and Kato, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         110,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    102,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               492,408
<PP&E>                                       1,230,329
<DEPRECIATION>                               (488,530)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,355,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          818,321
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     49,664
<COMMON>                                        94,719
<OTHER-SE>                                     322,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,355,795
<SALES>                                        367,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               367,023
<CGS>                                          379,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  379,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,256,699
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,335,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,335,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,335,707)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
### Fw: SENT TO OMB - OAR final action SAN 5163: Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide Mary Henigin to: Michael Stewart, Lydia Wegman, Rosalina Rodriguez, Karen Martin, Tricia Crabtree, Ron Evans, Kathy Kaufman 05/04/2010 03:43 PM
Cc: Peter South, Jan Cortelyou-Lee

----- Forwarded by Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US on 05/04/2010 03:41 PM -----

From: Nathaniel Jutras/DC/USEPA/US To: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US Cc: Venu Ghanta/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alexander Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Heinzerling/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Kime/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/04/2010 03:38 PM Subject: SENT TO OMB - OAR final action SAN 5163: Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide 

### Today 5/4/2010, final actionSAN 5163: Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide was sent to OMB. This Tier 1 action has been updated in RAPIDS. Thank you, Nathaniel P. Jutras U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OA / OPEI/ Regulatory Management Division Washington, DC 20406 (P) (202) 564.0301 (F) (202) 564.0965
#### WILLIAM G. MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES.

[41 C. Cls. R., 400; 208 U. S. R., 33.]

*On the defendants' Appeal.*

In tlie Army an aid to a major-general is allowed by law “ *$200 a year, in addition to pay of his ranlc*” (Rev. Slat., sec. 1261) ; and by tbe navy personnel act officers of tbe Navy are to receive tbe same pay as officers of tbe Army of correlative rank. Tbe question in tbe case is whether an officer of tbe Navy assigned to duty on tbe personal staff of tbe commander in chief as flag lieutenant is an aid and entitled to this additional pay, be not being designated as aid in tbe order of assignment.

Tbe court below decides:

I. A naval officer assigned to duty on tbe personal staff of tbe commander in chief on tbe Pacific Station as flag lieutenant, and by no other designation, is an aid and entitled to the additional pay of $200 given to tbe aid of a major-general in tbe Army by Revised Statutes, section 1261.

II. An aid to an admiral is entitled to have bis longevity pay calculated upon the additional pay which be receives as aid. Tbe *Act 80th June, 1882*(22 Stat. L., p. 118), was designed .to cure a defect in the computation of longevity pay. To make this statute exclude from tbe computation tbe additional pay of an officer given by statute would bring about a result not intended by Congress.

The decision of the court below is affirmed as to the officer being entitled to the additional pay of $200 and is reversed as to the longevity pay.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 6, 1908.
##### 



Exhibit 10.5
 INDEPENDENCE COMMUNITY BANK AMENDED AND
RESTATED CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN
 APRIL 22 ND, 2005
 ARTICLE I
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLAN
  ARTICLE II
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN; ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE
 2.01 Purpose of the Plan.
 2.02 Eligibility to Participate.
 ARTICLE III
DEFINITIONS
 3.01 Annual Compensation. provided, however,




---



##### 



provided, further,
 3.02 Cause.
 3.03 Change in Control of the Corporation.
 3.04 Code.
 3.05
Committee.




---



##### 



3.06 Covered Officer. st and st
 3.07 Covered Officers Severance Period.
 st
 3.08 Date of Termination.
 3.09 Disability.
 3.10
Employee.
 3.11 Good Reason.
    3.12 IRS.
 3.13 Notice of Termination.




---



##### 



3.14 Officer.
 3.15 Retirement.
 ARTICLE IV
BENEFITS
 4.01 Payments and Benefits Upon Termination.
 (a)
    
    Pay to the Covered Officer a cash severance amount (Cash Severance Payment)
equal to the aggregate of the following for the Covered Officers Severance Period:
 (i)
    
    the Covered Officers Annual Compensation;(ii)
    
    the present value of the cost of providing
the Covered Officer with coverage under the Banks medical and
dental insurance plans.
  (b)
    
    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Cash Severance Payment
shall be reduced in accordance with the number of whole months that the Covered Officer
continues to be employed by the Employer or the successor thereto subsequent to a
Change in Control of the Corporation.For example, should the Covered Officers Severance Period be equal to 2 years or 24
months, but the covered Officer continues to be employed for six months following a
Change in Control of




---



##### 



the Corporation, then his or her Cash Severance Payment shall be equal to a one and
one-half year (18 months) payment rather than two years (24 months).
   4.02 Mitigation; Exclusivity of Benefits.
   4.03 Withholding.
 ARTICLE V
ASSIGNMENT




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
DURATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN
 6.01 Duration.
 6.02 Effective Date.
 ARTICLE VII
ADMINISTRATION
 7.01 Duties of the Committee.
 7.02 Appointment and Operation of the Committee.
 7.03 Limitation on Liability.




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
MISCELLANEOUS
 8.01 Notice.
 8.02 Governing Law.




---



##### 



8.03 Nature of Employment and Obligations.
   8.04 Headings.
 8.05 Validity.
 8.06 Regulatory Prohibition.
§ 524.2338 Terbinafine and betamethasone acetate. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of gel contains 10 milligrams (mg) terbinafine and 1 mg betamethasone acetate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 043264 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer one dose (1 tube) per affected ear(s) and repeat administration in 7 days.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of otitis externa in dogs, associated with susceptible strains of yeast (*Malassezia pachydermatis*).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[89 FR 42360, May 15, 2024]
#### § 26.43 Transmission of quality system evaluation reports.

Quality system evaluation reports covered by § 26.41 concerning products covered by this subpart shall be transmitted to the importing party within 60-calendar days of a request by the importing party. Should a new inspection be requested, the time period shall be extended by an additional 30-calendar days. A party may request a new inspection, for cause, identified to the other party. If the exporting party cannot perform an inspection within a specified period of time, the importing party may perform an inspection on its own.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-52651, 333-4502, 33-98386 and 333-81357) pertaining to the
Amended and Restated 1993 Stock Option Plan of PixTech, Inc. and on Form S-3
(Nos. 333-52789 and 333-70927) of our current report dated March 6, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of PixTech, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                     Ernst & Young AUDIT


                                     Ernst & Young AUDIT
                             Represented by: Christine Blanc patin
                                  /s/ Christine Blanc Patin



Marseilles, France
March 17, 2000
38706.

#### HAUGHEY *et al.*v. CHAMPION PAPER & FIBRE COMPANY.

Decided April 4, 1961.

*441*Walton*Hardin, for plaintiffs in error.

*Colley & Orr, Wilbur A. Orr, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The Supreme Court in *Haughey v. Arnold,*159 Ga. 243 (125 S. E. 451) held that the language in the conveyances in this case gave to the owners of the mineral rights in the land the right to use only so much of the timber on the land as was reasonably necessary to be used in direct connection with mineral, operations, and at such times as the same may be required for such uses. Construing the petition most strongly against the plaintiff, it does not allege that the proposed action by the defendants in dealing with the trees and surfaces of said land was not necessary to normal mineral operations on the land. The petition does allege that the defendants contend that their proposed action is necessary in their mining operations and the petition also alleges, and correctly so, that the defendants have a right to the use of the timber “only as may be needed by them to carry on the said mining.” We think that this deficiency is fatal to the right of the plaintiff to have a declaration of rights in the premises. Although the case of *Brooke v. Dellinger,*193 *442Ga. 66 (17 S. E. 2d 178) involved an action for damages, we think the principle there ruled on is controlling even in a- declaratory judgment action. In that case the court held that the action was properly determined on general demurrer because the petition failed to allege that the defendant in conducting mining operations conducted them in a negligent or improper manner, or that the acts complained of were not reasonably necessary to obtain the minerals conveyed. We are inclined to believe that the plaintiff in this case was under the impression that the petition in this case contained the necessary allegations. In view of the fact that the failure by the plaintiff in this case to make the necessary allegations, as indicated above, amounts to an admission that the proposed conduct of the defendants was necessary and proper in their mining operations, it was error for the court to' overrule the general demurrer to> the petition. The special demurrers are without merit. The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Michael Levy, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SportsLine.com, Inc.;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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
registrant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
registrants internal control over financial 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 has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially 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 financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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 registrant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 registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 19, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsImpact of Slot Substitution on CTOP PerformanceThe Air Traffic Management community has made important progress in collaborative trajectory management through the introduction of an FAA traffic management initiative called a Collaborative Trajectory Options Program (CTOP). A CTOP is also collaborative in that it permits airlines to provide a set of preferred reroute options (called a Trajectory Options Set or TOS) around an FCA. Airlines also specify a Relative Trajectory Cost (RTC) for each trajectory option that specifies cost of each route relative to the most preferred option. CTOP also airlines to do slot substitution. In this report, we discussed a specific scenario where airlines can reduce their delays by specifying relative slot cost as RTC and using subbing aggressively.Document ID20190002171Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKulkarni, Deepak*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredApril 4, 2019Publication DateMarch 1, 2019Subject CategoryAvionics And Aircraft InstrumentationAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220158ARC-E-DAA-TN66306Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsAir Traffic ManagementAvailable DownloadsNameType20190002171.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Quarter Ended September 30,
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                      1998              1997
                                                   ----------      -----------
<S>                                                <C>             <C>         
Net income (loss)                                  $  142,977      $(1,977,364)
Primary weighted average common shares              9,857,252        9,467,877
outstanding
Primary earnings per share                         $      .01      $      (.21)
Fully diluted weighted average common shares        9,857,252        9,467,877
outstanding
Fully diluted earnings per share                   $      .01      $      (.21)
</TABLE>