alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Glenn A. Jackson, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Boundless Motor Sports Racing, Inc. 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
6.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.   Date: February 22, 2005 /s/ Glenn A. Jackson   Glenn A. Jackson, Chief Accounting Officer
§ 78.65 Suicide prevention services: Case management services. Grantees providing or coordinating the provision of case management services must provide or coordinate the provision of case management services that include, at a minimum: ( a ) Performing a careful assessment of participants, and developing and monitoring case plans in coordination with a formal assessment of suicide prevention services needed, including necessary follow-up activities, to ensure that the participant's needs are adequately addressed;
( b ) Establishing linkages with appropriate agencies and service providers in the area to help participants obtain needed suicide prevention services;
( c ) Providing referrals to participants and related activities (such as scheduling appointments for participants) to help participants obtain needed suicide prevention services, such as medical, social, and educational assistance or other suicide prevention services to address participants' identified needs and goals;
( d ) Deciding how resources and services are allocated to participants on the basis of need;
( e ) Educating participants on issues, including, but not limited to, suicide prevention services availability and participant rights; and
( f ) Other activities, as approved by VA, to serve the comprehensive needs of participants for the purpose of reducing suicide risk.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2602 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2602

  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
 Mountain, Michigan, as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Medical Facility''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2007

 Mr. Stupak (for himself, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Hoekstra, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Dingell, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, and Mr. 
   Walberg) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
 Mountain, Michigan, as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Medical Facility''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITY, 
              IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
Mountain, Michigan, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 
be known and designated as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility''. Any reference to that medical 
facility in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper 
of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Oscar 
G. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 8.21 Misstatement of age.

If the age of the insured under a National Service life insurance policy has been understated, the amount of the insurance payable under the policy shall be such exact amount as the premium paid would have purchased at the correct age; if overstated, the excess of premiums paid shall be refunded without interest. Guaranteed surrender and loan values will be modified accordingly. The age of the insured will be admitted by the Department of Veterans Affairs at any time upon satisfactory proof.

[13 FR 7115, Nov. 27, 1948. Redesignated at 61 FR 29290, June 10, 1996. Redesignated at 65 FR 7437, Feb. 15, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

§ 51.480 Transportation. Transportation of participants to and from the adult day health care facility must be a component of the overall program of care. ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the State home must provide for transportation to enable participants, including persons with disabilities, to attend the program and to participate in State home-sponsored outings.
( 2 ) The veteran or the family of a veteran may decline transportation offered by the adult day health care program and make their own arrangements for transportation.
( b ) The State home must have a transportation policy that includes procedures for routine and emergency transportation. All transportation (including that provided under contract) must be in compliance with such procedures.
( c ) The State home must ensure that the transportation it provides is by drivers who have access to a device for two-way communication.
( d ) All systems and vehicles used by the State home to comply with this section must meet all applicable local, State and Federal regulations.
( e ) The State home must ensure that the care needs of each participant are addressed during transportation furnished by the home.
#### PEARSON ET VIR v. THE UNITED STATES

March 2, 1925.

[58 C. Cls. 485; 267 U. S. 423]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

Where the Government erected and used buildings on leased land with the oral permission of the lessee, and subsequently removed them, although the lessors contended that the right to do so had expired by the terms of the lease, *held,*(a) that, in the absence of proof that the Government had knowledge of the terms of the lease or of the lessors’ acquiescence in the user, no relation of landlord and tenant existed between the lessors and the United States under the lease from which an agreement of the latter to pay for the property could be implied, (b) The Government having removed the buildings under claim of right, no agreement to pay as for property taken for public use could be implied.

Mr. Justice SaNEORD

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
GLNG-12/31/2014-Ex 4.17




Exhibit 4.17
US 3164058v.5


January 20, 2015


Golar LNG Partners LP
c/o Golar Management Limited
13th Floor
One America Square
17 Crosswall 
London EC3N 2LB
England


Golar LNG Limited
Par-la-Ville Place, 4th Floor
14 Par-la-Ville Road
Hamilton HM 08 Bermuda


Reference is made to (i) the Purchase, Sale and Contribution Agreement, dated as of December 9, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and among Golar LNG Limited, a Bermuda exempted company (“Golar”), Golar LNG Partners LP, a Marshall Islands limited partnership (the “Partnership”), and Golar Partners Operating LLC, a Marshall Islands limited liability company, and (ii) the FSRU Lease Agreement, dated as of July 31, 2013 (the “Charter”), by and between Golar Eskimo Corporation, a Marshall Islands corporation, and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Charterer”).  Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement and not otherwise defined herein will have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


The undersigned parties hereby agree that:


		
	1.
	Golar shall pay to the Partnership an aggregate fee equal to $22,000,000.00 in six equal monthly installments of $3,666,666.67 starting on January 31, 2015 and ending on June 30, 2015 for the right to use, charter and enjoy the vessel and its benefits without restriction;




		
	2.
	The Partnership shall pay to Golar any hire payments actually received by the Partnership or its subsidiaries with respect to the Vessel, pursuant to the Charter or otherwise, for services performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015; and




		
	3.
	If requested by Golar, the Partnership shall charter the Vessel to a party other than the Charterer for any length of time between the Closing Date and the earlier of (a) the Hire Commencement Date (as such term is defined in the Charter) and (b) June 30, 2015.




Please acknowledge your acceptance and agreement of this letter agreement by signing in the space provided below.  Upon your execution of this letter agreement (or counterpart copies hereof), this letter agreement shall become binding on the parties hereto.


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

1






Very truly yours, 
    
GOLAR LNG LIMITED


By:_/s/ Brian Tienzo_______________
     Name:__ Brian Tienzo___________
     Title: ___Attorney-in-fact________
    



Signature Page to Letter Agreement






Acknowledged and agreed:


GOLAR LNG PARTNERS LP


By:_/s/ Brian Tienzo_______________
    Name:__ Brian Tienzo___________
    Title: ___Attorney-in-fact________

























Signature Page to Letter Agreement
1/2 

EASA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 

AD No : 2008-0014 

Date: 17 January 2008

No person may operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies, except in accordance with the 

requirements of that Airworthiness Directive unless otherwise agreed with the Authority of the State of Registry.

Type Approval Holder’s Name : 

TURBOMECA 

Type/Model designation(s) : 

Arriel 1 series Turboshaft engines 

TCDS Number : EASA E.073 

Foreign AD : Not applicable 

Supersedure : None 

ATA 73 Engine Fuel & Control – Fuel Control Unit (FCU) 3-way Union 

Plug – Inspection 

Manufacturer(s): TURBOMECA 

Applicability: 

Arriel 1E2, 1S and 1S1 turboshaft engines, all serial numbers. 

These engines are known to be installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter 

Deutschland MBB-BK 117 series and Sikorsky S-76A series twin-engine 

helicopters. 

Reason: 

A plug adapted for engine bench testing (called “red disk” plug) and not 

approved for service operation, could inadvertently be installed on the 

engine Fuel Control Unit 3-way union, instead of the sealed plug approved 

for service operation. 

Turboméca S.A. has informed EASA of a case of a “red disk” plug that has 

been actually installed on an engine which has been subsequently released 

for service operation. This engine experienced an in-service high pressure 

leak event (at the fuel pump outlet) due to cracking of this “red disk“ plug. 

This leak could lead to in-flight flame-out and/or possibly a fire. 

For the reasons described above, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires 

a one-time inspection and corrective action, as necessary. 

Effective Date: 31 January 2008 

Compliance: 

Within 100 operating hours from effective date of this AD, perform a one 

time inspection of the correct reference of the plug installed on the FCU 3-

way union (9 932 30 706 0) and verify its torque to be set between 1.3 

and 1.5 daN.m in accordance with Turboméca Mandatory Service Bulletin 

292 73 0817. 
2/2 

Ref. Publications: 

Turboméca, S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 73 0817 dated 06 

December 2007. 

The use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for 

compliance with the requirements of this AD. 

Remarks :

1. If requested and appropriately substantiated, EASA can accept 

Alternative Methods of Compliance for this AD. 

2. This AD was posted on 17 December 2007 as PAD 07-226 for 

consultation until 14 January 2008. No comments were received during 

the consultation period. 

3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be referred to the AD Focal Point - 

Certification Directorate, EASA; E-mail: ADs@easa.europa.eu .

4. For any question concerning the technical content of the requirements 

in this AD, please contact: 

Turboméca, S.A., ARRIEL 1 Customer Support, 40220 TARNOS, 

FRANCE. Fax: +33 5 59 74 45 15; or contact your nearest technical 

representative at www.turbomeca-support.com
42110.

#### BEARD v. CALVERT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Argued June 7, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966.

*251*Allgood & Childs, Thomas F. Allgood,*for appellant.

*Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler, Harper & Reed, Gould B. Hagler,*for appellee.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The 1960 Insurance Code *(Code Ann. Ch.*56-12) authorizes service on a foreign insurance company by methods of service provided by law other than in the Insurance Code, hence on its local agent, as provided by *Code*§ 22-1101 (Ga. L. 1845, Cobb, 475), as well as on the appointed process agent. *Aetna Cas. &c. Co. v. Sampley,*108 Ga. App. 617, 620 (3) (134 SE2d 71). *Code*§ 22-1101 also provides for service “by leaving the same at the place of transacting the usual and ordinary public business of such corporation, if any such place of business then shall be within the jurisdiction of the court in which said suit may be commenced.”

*“The”*place is not construed as being restricted to the *sole*place of business. The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the finding that, although the defendant foreign insurer conducted *some*of its business in various places, such as garages and body shops, it transacted a sufficient amount of its “usual and ordinary public business” at the office at which the process was left to constitute said office as its usual and ordinary place of business for the purpose of service.

Accordingly, the court erred in its judgment directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 31.1

                         CERTIFICATION
I, Robert L. Saxe, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Research Frontiers Incorporated ("RFI" or the "registrant")
certify that:

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

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 officers 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 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 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 officers 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.

Dated: May 10, 2004                     /s/ Robert L. Saxe
                                            Robert L. Saxe
                                            Chairman and Chief
                                            Executive Officer
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

J. MICHAEL COP AND TERESA COP VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 

### 2021 CW 1283



### JANUARY 21, 2022

In Re: Department of Transportation and Development of the

State of Louisiana, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 705697.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. On review, 

### we find the words of the act of sale 

### containing the compromise agreement are clear and explicit 

### and lead to no absurd consequences. Extrinsic evidence was thus 

### inadmissible to explain or to contradict the terms of that 

### instrument. See Ortega v. State, Department of Transportation 

### and Development, 96-1322, ( La. 2/25/97), 

### 689 So.2d 1358, 1363. Based on the 

### language of the act of sale, we find plaintiffs 

## fully settled all claims against 

### defendant 

## including their loss of rental 

### income claim. See Barker v. Dept. of 

### Transp. And Dev., 

### 2008-1084 ( La. 

### App. 1st Cir. 

### 12/23/08), 4 So.3d 869. 

## Accordingly, the August 27, 2021 

### judgment of the 

### district court 

## denying the 

### peremptory exception of res 

### judicata filed 

## by defendant, Department of Transportation and Development of the State of Louisiana, is reversed. The exception is 

## hereby granted, 

### thereby 

## dismissing all claims filed 

## by plaintiffs, J. 

## Michael CopandTeresaCop. JMG GH WRC



### COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPU Y C ERKOFCOURT FOR THE COURT
§ 1.8 Nonconforming investments. ( a ) A national bank's investment in securities that no longer conform to this part but conformed when made will not be deemed in violation but instead will be treated as nonconforming if the reason why the investment no longer conforms to this part is because: ( 1 ) The bank's capital declines;
( 2 ) Issuers, obligors, or credit-enhancers merge;
( 3 ) Issuers become related directly or indirectly through common control;
( 4 ) The investment securities rules change;
( 5 ) The security no longer qualifies as an investment security; or
( 6 ) Other events identified by the OCC occur.
( b ) A bank shall exercise reasonable efforts to bring an investment that is nonconforming as a result of events described in paragraph (a) of this section into conformity with this part unless to do so would be inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SS.1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| 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. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 | **IR                BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.** |
|                            |                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Date:                August 14, 2007 | By:                                    | /s/ Michael                K.                Wilhelm                              |
|                                 | Chief                Executive Officer           |
|                                 |                                             |
#### William H. Browning, Respondent, *v.*Helen E. Chadwick, Appellant.

Appeal from an order adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt and imposing a fine.

Howe & Hummel, for appellant.

Clarence E. Thornall, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed, without costs, on authority of Browning v. Chadwick, decided by the General Term of this court, November 16, 1899 (29 Misc. Rep. 607); opinion by Mr. Justice Conlan.

Present: Eitzsimoks, Ch'. J., O’Dwyer and Schurmak, JJ.

Order affirmed, without costs.