alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
o Afi'iMENTOF 

.iPORWipN,, 

US : l U r ERf'fl iONc: 1200 New jersey Avenue, SE . Department Of 

Ttansportatio n Washington, DC 20590 

Office Of the Secretary ':^ji ;JJ3 ~M P 2= OU 

ofTransportatkxi 

August 4, 2011 

BY FAX: (808) 837-7867 

Mr. Richard Schuman 

President 

Schuman Aviation Company, Ltd. 

130 lolana Place 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0006 

Application of Schuman Aviation Company, Ltd. 

for Commuter Air Carrier Authority 

Dear Mr. Schuman: 

This responds to your letter of August 3 requesting a 20-day extension of time in which to 

fulfill the conditions in Final Order 2010-8-1, issued August 6, 2010, that requires 

Schuman Aviation Company, Ltd. ("Schuman Aviation") to commence scheduled 

passenger operations as a commuter air carrier within one year of that date. 

The effectiveness of this authority was conditioned upon Schuman Aviation fulfilling a 

number of conditions, including providing (1) a copy of the air carrier's Air Carrier 

Certificate and Operation Specifications from the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") evidencing that the air carrier has acquired FAA safety authority authorizing it to 

commence scheduled passenger operations, (2) evidence of liability insurance coverage 

that meets the requirements of section 205.5(b) for all its aircraft, (3) a statement of any 

changes it has undergone in areas affecting its fitness subsequent to the issuance date of the 

Show Cause Order in this case (Order 2010-6-17), and (4) updated financial information 

and evidence that the air carrier still has available to it funds sufficient to meet the 

Department's financial fitness criteria. 

After reviewing the information you submitted in support of an extension, we have 

concluded that there is good cause to grant your request. Therefore, we grant Schuman 

Aviation's request for an extension. Accordingly, Schuman Aviation now has until 

August 26, 2011, to make its conmiuter authority effective. 
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Damon Walker of my staff 

on (202) 366-7785. 

Sincerely, 

Laii^al}^ J. Remo 

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0006 

Mr. Gino D. Rezzonico 

POI for Schuman Aviation
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





Hollis-Eden
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


San Diego, CA





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 24, 2002 relating to the financial statements of Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated by reference into the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2001, into the prospectuses constituting a part of the following registration statements: No. 333-18725 on Form S-8 to Form S-4, No. 333-18725 on Form S-3 to Form S-4, No. 333-56155 on Form S-3, No. 333-56157 on
Form S-3, No. 333-69725 on Form S-3, No. 333-69727 on Form S-3, No. 333-72853 on Form S-3, No. 333-92179 on Form S-3, No. 333-92185 on Form S-8, No. 333-96181 on Form S-3, 333-34180 on Form S-3, 333-51284 on Form S-3, 333-51286 on Form S-8,
333-65712 on Form S-8, 333-69454 on Form S-1, and 333-75860 on Form S-3.





| | /s/ | BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
| | --- | ----------------




New York, NY


February 21, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-280-CV

CARTER & BURGESS, INC. N/K/A APPELLANT AND APPELLEE

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

V.

SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT APPELLEE AND APPELLANT

COMPANY, INC.

------------

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

Appellee and appellant Sheffield Development Company, Inc. (Sheffield)

has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. Sheffield contends that

the appeal is moot because it nonsuited all of its claims against appellant and

appellee Carter & Burgess, Inc. n/k/a Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Carter &

Burgess), and the trial court entered an order dismissing those claims without

1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
prejudice. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 162. Carter & Burgess concurs that the appeal

is moot. We also agree that the appeal is moot.

2 Thus, in accord with

Sheffield’s motion, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f);

Reynolds v. Murphy, 266 S.W.3d 141, 145 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet.

denied); City of Fort Worth v. Pastusek Indus., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.).

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICE

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DATED: November 19, 2009

2... Carter & Burgess’s brief concerns whether the trial court erred by

denying its motion to dismiss and by allowing a Certificate of Merit to be filed

regarding Sheffield’s claims that have now been nonsuited.

2
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE02996

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2010265EN.01000601.xml

| 30.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/6

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

2010/C 265/05

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 24 February 2010 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case Number | : | 67099 |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Training Aid granted by Innovation Norway to the Romanian companies SC Promex SA and SC 24 Januarie SA |
| Legal basis | : | Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning a Co-operation Programme for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Romania of 25 July 2007 |
| Type of measure | : | Training aid |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | EUR 247,051 |
| Intensity | : | 24 % |
| Duration | : | Until 30 April 2011 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Innovation Norway |
| Akersgata 13 |
| PO Box 448 |
| 0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

24 February 2010

Case Number

:

67099

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Training Aid granted by Innovation Norway to the Romanian companies SC Promex SA and SC 24 Januarie SA

Legal basis

:

Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway concerning a Co-operation Programme for Economic Growth and Sustainable Development in Romania of 25 July 2007

Type of measure

:

Training aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

:

EUR 247,051

Intensity

:

24 %

Duration

:

Until 30 April 2011

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Innovation Norway

Akersgata 13

PO Box 448

0104 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.192 Appraiser panel—annual size calculation. For purposes of determining whether, within a 12-month period, an AMC oversees an appraiser panel of more than 15 State-certified or State-licensed appraisers in a State or 25 or more State-certified or State-licensed appraisers in two or more States pursuant to § 225.191(d)(1)(iii)- ( a ) An appraiser is deemed part of the AMC's appraiser panel as of the earliest date on which the AMC: ( 1 ) Accepts the appraiser for the AMC's consideration for future appraisal assignments in covered transactions or for secondary mortgage market participants in connection with covered transactions; or
( 2 ) Engages the appraiser to perform one or more appraisals on behalf of a creditor for a covered transaction or secondary mortgage market participant in connection with a covered transaction.
( b ) An appraiser who is deemed part of the AMC's appraiser panel pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is deemed to remain on the panel until the date on which the AMC: ( 1 ) Sends written notice to the appraiser removing the appraiser from the appraiser panel, with an explanation of its action; or
( 2 ) Receives written notice from the appraiser asking to be removed from the appraiser panel or notice of the death or incapacity of the appraiser.
( c ) If an appraiser is removed from an AMC's appraiser panel pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, but the AMC subsequently accepts the appraiser for consideration for future assignments or engages the appraiser at any time during the twelve months after the AMC's removal, the removal will be deemed not to have occurred, and the appraiser will be deemed to have been part of the AMC's appraiser panel without interruption.
( d ) The period for purposes of counting appraisers on an AMC's appraiser panel may be the calendar year or a 12-month period established by law or rule of each State with which the AMC is required to register.
§ 221.122 Applicability of margin requirements to credit in connection with Insurance Premium Funding Programs. ( a ) The Board has been asked numerous questions regarding purpose credit in connection with insurance premium funding programs. The inquiries are included in a set of guidelines in the format of questions and answers. (The guidelines are available pursuant to the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information, 12 CFR part 261.) A glossary of terms customarily used in connection with insurance premium funding credit activities is included in the guidelines. Under a typical insurance premium funding program, a borrower acquires mutual fund shares for cash, or takes fund shares which he already owns, and then uses the loan value (currently 50 percent as set by the Board) to buy insurance. Usually, a funding company (the issuer) will sell both the fund shares and the insurance through either independent broker/dealers or subsidiaries or affiliates of the issuer. A typical plan may run for 10 or 15 years with annual insurance premiums due. To illustrate, assuming an annual insurance premium of $300, the participant is required to put up mutual fund shares equivalent to 250 percent of the premium or $600 ($600 × 50 percent loan value equals $300 the amount of the insurance premium which is also the amount of the credit extended).
( b ) The guidelines referenced in paragraph (a) of this section also: ( 1 ) Clarify an earlier 1969 Board interpretation to show that the public offering price of mutual fund shares (which includes the front load, or sales commission) may be used as a measure of their current market value when the shares serve as collateral on a purpose credit throughout the day of the purchase of the fund shares; and
( 2 ) Relax a 1965 Board position in connection with accepting purpose statements by mail.
( c ) It is the Board's view that when it is clearly established that a purpose statement supports a purpose credit then such statement executed by the borrower may be accepted by mail, provided it is received and also executed by the lender before the credit is extended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR 2ND QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         25,931
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,875)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,354
<SALES>                                          1,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,253
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   544
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (440)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (440)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - E1994P0001 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# E1994P0001

**Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94) **

*
Official Journal C 199 , 21/07/1994 P. 0009 - 0009 *

Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94) (94/C 199/08)

Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of the tullilautakunta (Appeals Committee of the National Board of Customs) of 19 April 1994, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1994, for an advisory opinion in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Custom House) on the following questions:

1. Can it be considered, having regard, on the one hand, to the statutory monopoly of Oy Alko Ab (the alcohol company) to import alcoholic beverages but, on the other hand, also to the measures of authorization which the company has announced it is ready to institute in order to permit commercial import of alcohol on terms laid down by the company itself, that the commercial import of alcohol from other Contracting States is not quantitatively restricted or hindered by a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, if the administrative court of appeal confirms the decision of the competent customs authority not to permit the imported consignment of alcohol into free circulation without the permission of Oy Alko Ab, which permission is requird by law?

2. Is the statutory monopoly referred to above contrary to Article 16 of the Agreement?

If so:

Is this Article so unconditional and sufficiently precise as to have direct legal effect and should the import monopoly therefore be considered as having expired from 1 January 1994?
427 A.2d 249

#### Commonwealth v. Fuller, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 1980.

Robert T. Gownley, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for appellant;

Ernest D. Preate, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appel-lee.

Before PRICE, CAVANAUGH and WATKINS, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the shell company reporton Form 20-F of Marti Technologies, Inc. (formerly Galata Acquisition Corp.) of our report dated May 19, 2023, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Marti Technologies Inc. and subsidiaries, which report appears in Amendment No.4 to the registration statement(No. 333-269067) of Galata Acquisition Corp. and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Statement by Experts” in the shell company report on Form 20-F.

 

 

/s/ KPMG Bağımsız Denetim veSMMM A.Ş.

 

Izmir, Turkey

July 14, 2023
# C_2023277EN.01000101.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 August 2023

(2023/C 277/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0946 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4514 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86193 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,7000 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9598 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 144,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1858 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,260 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 391,73 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4485 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9530 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 29,5436 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6694 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4648 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5485 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8009 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4701 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 435,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,4214 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8661 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 624,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9859 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,073 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,081 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3729 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9566 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,7300 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0946

JPY

Japanese yen

156,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4514

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86193

SEK

Swedish krona

11,7000

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9598

ISK

Iceland króna

144,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1858

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,260

HUF

Hungarian forint

391,73

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4485

RON

Romanian leu

4,9530

TRY

Turkish lira

29,5436

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6694

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4648

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5485

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8009

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4701

KRW

South Korean won

1 435,40

ZAR

South African rand

20,4214

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8661

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 624,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9859

PHP

Philippine peso

61,073

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,081

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3729

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9566

INR

Indian rupee

90,7300

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Exhibit 24.2
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Kirby L. Cramer, in my
individual capacity and as Director of Unilab Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby constitute and appoint Mark L. Bibi, Richard
A. Michaelson and/or Brian D. Urban, severally or any one of them acting alone,
from the date hereof until such time as this Power of Attorney is revoked in
writing, to act as my true and lawful agent and attorney-in-fact, in my name and
on my behalf to execute, consent to, swear to, acknowledge, record, file, amend
and/or modify and deliver one or more registration statements for the filing of
securities of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act") and any and all subsequent filings made by or on behalf of the
Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
the Securities Act and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
this 10th day of October 1994.

                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Kirby L. Cramer
§ 23.21 Estimated residual value. ( a ) *Recovery of investment and costs.* A national bank's estimate of the residual value of the property that the bank relies upon to satisfy the requirements of a full-payout lease, for purposes of this subpart: ( 1 ) Must be reasonable in light of the nature of the leased property and all circumstances relevant to the transaction; and
( 2 ) Any unguaranteed amount must not exceed 25 percent of the original cost of the property to the bank or the percentage for a particular type of property specified in published OCC guidance.
( b ) *Estimated residual value subject to guarantee.* The amount of any estimated residual value guaranteed by the manufacturer, the lessee, or other third party may exceed 25 percent of the original cost of the property if the bank determines, and demonstrates by appropriate documentation, that the guarantor has the resources to meet the guarantee and the guarantor is not an affiliate of the bank.
( c ) *Leases to government entities.* A bank's calculations of estimated residual value in connection with leases of personal property to Federal, State, or local governmental entities may be based on future transactions or renewals that the bank reasonably anticipates will occur.
[61 FR 66560, Dec. 18, 1996, as amended at 66 FR 34792, July 2, 2001]
Exhibit 32.1

OPTi Inc.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of OPTi Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report). I,
Bernard T. Marren, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Date: 6/27/08



/s/    BERNARD T. MARRENBernard T. Marren,Chief Executive Officer
#### Louis Hornberger et al., Appellants, *v.*Annie Feder et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

*711Weschler *&*Bernstein, for appellants.

Blau *&*Lesser, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment modified, by reducing the value fixed from $148.75 to $110, and as modified, affirmed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment modified, and as modified, affirmed, with costs.
#### § 215.10 Reporting requirement for credit secured by certain bank stock.

Each executive officer or director of a member bank the shares of which are not publicly traded shall report annually to the board of directors of the member bank the outstanding amount of any credit that was extended to the executive officer or director and that is secured by shares of the member bank.

[Reg. O, 59 FR 8837, Feb. 24, 1994. Redesignated at 71 FR 71474, Dec. 11, 2006]