alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 3.3

                      AFFILIATED COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.

                              CLERK'S CERTIFICATE


     I, Quentin J.  Greeley, hereby certify that I am the duly elected and
qualified Clerk of Affiliated Community Bancorp, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation (the "Corporation"), and I hereby further certify that set forth
below is a true, complete and correct copy of the resolution duly adopted by
unanimous vote of the full Board of Directors of the Corporation at a Regular
Meeting of the Board of Directors held on July 17, 1997.

VOTED:    To amend the by-laws of the Company by deleting Article I
          /S/9 and substituting the following in place thereof:

          No Stockholder Action by Written Consent. Subject to the rights of
          ----------------------------------------                        
          the holders of any series of preferred stock or any other series or
          class of stock as set forth in the Articles of Organization to elect
          additional directors under specific circumstances or to consent to
          specific actions taken by the Corporation, any action required or
          permitted to be taken by the stockholders of the Corporation must be
          effected at an annual or special meeting of stockholders of the
          Corporation and may not be effected by any consent in writing by such
          stockholders.


                                    /S/ QUENTIN J. GREELEY
                                    -------------------------------            
                                    Quentin J. Greeley, Clerk


   March 6, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7382

ROOSEVELT ISAAC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

P. DOUGLAS TAYLOR; NATHANIEL WATSON; JOE

BLACK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-94-2O03-3-19-BC)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Isaac, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Isaac v. Taylor,

No. CA-94-2003-3-19-BC (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 1995). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 710.8 Misbranding by reference to registration or to registration number.

Registration of a cosmetic product establishment or assignment of a registration number does not in any way denote approval of the firm or its products by the Food and Drug Administration. Any representation in labeling or advertising that creates an impression of official approval because of registration or possession of a registration number will be considered misleading.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 600290

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### FRANK L. SPEARS Petty Officer First Class (E

- 6), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: C aptain Paul C. LeBlanc , JAGC, USN

. For Appellant : C ommander Chris D. Tucker
, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 30 November 2016

_________________________ Before P ALMER , C AMPBELL , and R UGH , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the conv ening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
                                                                                     MARCH 31,
                                                                         --------------------------------
                                                                             1997                   1996*
                                                                             ----                   -----

<S>                                                                      <C>                   <C>
Net income (in thousands)                                                $      855            $      470
                                                                         ==========            ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding  (1) **                               1,438,348             1,495,086
Common stock equivalents due to the dilutive effect of
    stock options under the treasury stock method                            14,041                    --
                                                                         ----------            ----------
  Weighted average shares outstanding and
    common stock equivalents                                              1,452,389             1,495,086

Primary earnings per share                                               $     0.59            $     0.31
                                                                         ==========            ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding and
   common stock equivalents (above)                                       1,452,389             1,495,086
Additional dilutive common stock equivalents using period end
   market value versus average market value for the period                    8,341                    --
                                                                         ----------            ----------

Fully diluted weighted average shares and
  common stock equivalents                                                1,460,730             1,495,086

Fully diluted earnings per share                                         $     0.59            $     0.31
                                                                         ==========            ==========
</TABLE>

*   Six-month period following the Bank's conversion to stock form.
** Includes only the portion of ESOP shares committed to be released to
   participants.
# C_2015007EN.01001601.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 27 October 2014 — Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’ v Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-477/14)

(2015/C 007/21)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is Article 20 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 2014 (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2) invalid, either in whole or in a relevant part, for one or more of the following reasons:

1

2

| — | It imposes either as a whole or in a relevant part a series of obligations on electronic cigarette manufacturers and/or retailers which infringe the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | --- |

—

It imposes either as a whole or in a relevant part a series of obligations on electronic cigarette manufacturers and/or retailers which infringe the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty?

| — | For equivalent or similar reasons, it fails to comply with the principle of equality and/or unlawfully distorts competition? |
| --- | --- |

—

For equivalent or similar reasons, it fails to comply with the principle of equality and/or unlawfully distorts competition?

| — | It fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity? |
| --- | --- |

—

It fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity?

| — | It infringes the rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers or retailers under Articles 16 and/or 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights? |
| --- | --- |

—

It infringes the rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers or retailers under Articles 16 and/or 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

---

(1)  OJ L 127, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 194, p. 26.

2

---
§ 801.415 Maximum acceptable level of ozone. ( a ) Ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals.
( b ) Although undesirable physiological effects on the central nervous system, heart, and vision have been reported, the predominant physiological effect of ozone is primary irritation of the mucous membranes. Inhalation of ozone can cause sufficient irritation to the lungs to result in pulmonary edema. The onset of pulmonary edema is usually delayed for some hours after exposure; thus, symptomatic response is not a reliable warning of exposure to toxic concentrations of ozone. Since olfactory fatigue develops readily, the odor of ozone is not a reliable index of atmospheric ozone concentration.
( c ) A number of devices currently on the market generate ozone by design or as a byproduct. Since exposure to ozone above a certain concentration can be injurious to health, any such device will be considered adulterated and/or misbranded within the meaning of sections 501 and 502 of the act if it is used or intended for use under the following conditions: ( 1 ) In such a manner that it generates ozone at a level in excess of 0.05 part per million by volume of air circulating through the device or causes an accumulation of ozone in excess of 0.05 part per million by volume of air (when measured under standard conditions at 25 °C (77 °F) and 760 millimeters of mercury) in the atmosphere of enclosed space intended to be occupied by people for extended periods of time, e.g., houses, apartments, hospitals, and offices. This applies to any such device, whether portable or permanent or part of any system, which generates ozone by design or as an inadvertent or incidental product.
( 2 ) To generate ozone and release it into the atmosphere in hospitals or other establishments occupied by the ill or infirm.
( 3 ) To generate ozone and release it into the atmosphere and does not indicate in its labeling the maximum acceptable concentration of ozone which may be generated (not to exceed 0.05 part per million by volume of air circulating through the device) as established herein and the smallest area in which such device can be used so as not to produce an ozone accumulation in excess of 0.05 part per million.
( 4 ) In any medical condition for which there is no proof of safety and effectiveness.
( 5 ) To generate ozone at a level less than 0.05 part per million by volume of air circulating through the device and it is labeled for use as a germicide or deodorizer.
( d ) This section does not affect the present threshold limit value of 0.10 part per million (0.2 milligram per cubic meter) of ozone exposure for an 8-hour-day exposure of industrial workers as recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
( e ) The method and apparatus specified in 40 CFR part 50, or any other equally sensitive and accurate method, may be employed in measuring ozone pursuant to this section.
§ 516.115 Definitions. ( a ) The following definitions of terms apply only in the context of subpart C of this part: *Director OMUMS* means the Director of the Office of Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Drug Development of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine.
*Holder* means the requestor of an index listing after the request is granted and the new animal drug is added to the index.
*Index* means FDA's list of legally marketed unapproved new animal drugs for minor species.
*Intended use* has the same meaning as that given in § 516.13 of this chapter.
*Qualified expert panel* means a panel that is composed of experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the target animal safety and effectiveness of a new animal drug under consideration for indexing.
*Requestor* means the person making a request for determination of eligibility for indexing or a request for addition to the index.
*Transgenic animal* means an animal whose genome contains a nucleotide sequence that has been intentionally modified in vitro, and the progeny of such an animal, provided that the term ‘transgenic animal’ does not include an animal of which the nucleotide sequence of the genome has been modified solely by selective breeding.
( b ) The definitions of the following terms are given in § 514.3 of this chapter: Adverse drug experience. Product defect/manufacturing defect. Serious adverse drug experience. Unexpected adverse drug experience.
( c ) The definitions of the following terms are given in § 516.3 of this chapter:
Same dosage form. Same drug. Same intended use.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Smart-tek Solutions,
Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ending June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and
belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Brian BonarBrian Bonar Chief Financial
Officer

March 15, 2011

---
STATE OFMICHIGAN 

# DEi\ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR LANSING

July27, 2015
Dr. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 WestJackson Boulevard (R-19J) Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507 Dear Dr. Hedman: DAN WYANT DIRECTOR

SUBJECT: 40 CFR, Part 60, Negative Declaration for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated revised Emission Guidelines and NewSource Performance Standardsfor Existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion (SMWC) Units on December 6, 2000. The Emission Guidelines, specifically, 40 CFR §60.1510, require the submittal ofa letterof negative declaration to the USEPA ifthere are no existing SMWC Units in the state. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has recently conducted a survey ofall our district offices and current air quality permits. This search has confirmed that there are currently no existing SMWC Units, as defined by 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart BBBB, in Michigan. Therefore, the MDEQ requests the USEPA's approval ofthis negative declaration. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Erica Wolf, Air Quality Division, at 517-284-6766; wolfe1 @michigan.gov; or MDEQ, P.O. Box 30260, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7760; oryou may contact me.

# ~w Dan Wyant Director 517-284-6700
cc: Ms. Margaret Sieffert, USEPA, Region 5 Mr. Jim Sygo, Chief Deputy Director, MDEQ Ms. Lynn Fiedler, MDEQ Ms. Mary Maupin, MDEQ Ms. Erica Wolf, MDEQ

CONSTITUTION HALL"525WESTALLEGAN STREET• P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MICHIGAN48909-7973 www.michigan.gov/deq "(800)662-9278
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7470 Glycosylated hemoglobin assay. ( a ) *Identification.* A glycosylated hemoglobin assay is a device used to measure the glycosylated hemoglobins (A1a, A1b, and A1c) in a patient's blood by a column chromatographic procedure. Measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin is used to assess the level of control of a patient's diabetes and to determine the proper insulin dosage for a patient. Elevated levels of glycosylated hemoglobin indicate uncontrolled diabetes in a patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[45 FR 60621, Sept. 12, 1980]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1665 Sodium test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A sodium test system is a device intended to measure sodium in serum, plasma, and urine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of aldosteronism (excessive secretion of the hormone aldosterone), diabetes insipidus (chronic excretion of large amounts of dilute urine, accompanied by extreme thirst), adrenal hypertension, Addison's disease (caused by destruction of the adrenal glands), dehydration, inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, or other diseases involving electrolyte imbalance.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
ST41.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

cIpct: REGION IX

‘to’ 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

SEP 122013

ilie 1—Tonorabi e John 1—ludson

Chairman

Arizona Power Authority

1 Xl 0 West Adams Street

Phoenix. Arizona 85007

Dear Chairman Hudson:

Thank you for your letter dated August 26, 2013 to Administrator McCarthy regarding the Navajo

Generating Station and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rulemaking to implement

the Best Available Retrofit Technology requirement at Navajo Generating Station (NGS). I have been

asked to respond to your letter on behalf ol Administrator McCarthy.

EPA appreciates Your comment letter and we have added your letter to the administrative record for our

proposed rulemaking on NGS. We will respond to all comments prior to taking final action.

II on h n e an dlucstlons 01 Loncclfls plce contact Anita Lcc of m Still at 1cc uu1lfaLpaao

Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

Printed on Recycled Paper
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 pertaining to the Employees' Stock Option Plans and Non-Employee
Director Share Option Plan of Nur Macroprinters of our report dated February
16, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Nur
Macroprinters included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended
December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Tel Aviv, Israel
April 30, 2000
                                             Yours truly,


                                      /s/ Kost, Forer and Gabbay

                                        KOST, FORER and GABBAY
                                  A member of Ernst & Young International
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         110,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  337,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    116,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               570,268
<PP&E>                                       6,249,288
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,031,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,959,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,216,610
<BONDS>                                      2,546,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    23,923,408
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,959,384
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               561,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (363,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (363,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015155EN.01003802.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission

(Case T-260/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 155/46)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
§ 582.1625 Potassium citrate. ( a ) *Product.* Potassium citrate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.