alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
  CERTIFICATION
 
  I, Peter Frugone, certify
that:
  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Arrow Resources Development, 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
  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 controls over financial reporting.
  Date: May 20,2009.
  /s/ Peter Frugone
 
 Principal Accounting
Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Epolin, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  the undersigned  certifies,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, that:

      (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.

Dated: October 15, 2010                  By:   /s/ Greg Amato
       ----------------                        --------------
                                               Greg Amato,
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: October 15, 2010                  By:   /s/ James Ivchenko
       ----------------                        ------------------
                                               James Ivchenko,
                                               President
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification**
               Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Elcom International, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, thatAmendment No. 1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004(the “Form 10-KSB”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-KSB.        Dated: April 22, 2005 /s/ Robert J. Crowell   Robert J. Crowell   Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,083
<SECURITIES>                                    16,148
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                       452
<INVENTORY>                                      4,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,806
<PP&E>                                          17,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,596
<SALES>                                         41,942
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,942
<CGS>                                           19,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,838
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   293
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,016)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,285)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,731)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
Phone: 870-741-5760 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

James Norton 

Boone County Judge 

100 N. Main Street, Suite 300 

Harrison, AR 72601 

May 31,2013 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

Fox: 870-741-2855 

' -~' 

c::. 

Regarding Essential Air Service at Harrison, Arkansas (Docket DOT -OST -1997-2935) 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

I appreciate this opportunity to submit comments regarding carrier selection for Essential 

Air Service at Harrison, Arkansas. 

As County Judge, my primary role is as Chief Executive Officer of Boone County's 

government with a span of responsibility that includes Boone County Regional Airport 

(HRO). The airport is an important part of our region's infrastructure and availability of 

quality and affordable air service plays a vital role in economic development and quality 

of life in Boone County. Understandably, and in no smart part due to our community 

being without scheduled service for more than a year after a previous EAS carrier ceased 

operations, we take the carrier selection process very seriously. 

Briefly with respect to each of the carrier proposals submitted: 

SeaPort Airlines has provided our community with good service since it began operations 

here in 2009, a fact that is reflected in our market's strong traffic growth. 

Boutique Air is untested as a scheduled air carrier and the risks to the progress we have 

made rebuilding traffic at HRO outweigh any potential benefit from lower subsidy. 

Air Choice One is the most expensive bid and offers no service advantages over that 

provided or proposed by SeaPort. 

Our community has been very satisfied with the service provided by see SeaPort Airlines 

and strongly support its reselection to provide EAS at Harrison, Arkansas. We have made 

great strides in rebuilding traffic at Boone County Regional Airport and believe reselection 

of SeaPort best serves our community's interests. Moreover, SeaPort's request for lower 

subsidy than it currently is paid serves the interests of the EAS program and results in my. 

support of SeaPort's request for a four-year EAS contract. 
Mr. Dennis DeVany Page2 · May 31, 2013 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment and thank you for your work on behalf 

Harrison and other EAS communities across our country. 

Sincerely yours, 

~--·?······ ... 

-~f ~ 

James Norton 

Boone County Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KAREEM MCNEIL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 546 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 407.7 Relationship to Freedom of Information Act.

Nothing in this part expands or limits the present rights of any person under part 404, except that the exemptions contained in § 407.2 shall govern in the case of any request made pursuant to part 404 to copy or inspect the transcripts, recordings or minutes described in § 407.6.
# C_2021343EN.01002401.xml

| 26.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/24

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 343/05)

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | 10 May 2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 86805 |
| Decision No | 037/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Iceland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 amendments and prolongations of the Closure grants and Resilience grants schemes |
| Legal basis | Legislative Act amending Act No 38/2020 and Act No 160/2020 |
| Type of measure | Schemes |
| Objective | Contribute to the continued economic activity of undertakings that have suffered loss of income during the COVID-19 pandemic and containment measures imposed to fight the spreading of the virus |
| Form of aid | Direct grants |
| Budget | Resilience grants scheme: Estimated budget of 20.5 billion
  Closure grants scheme: Estimated budget of ISK 1 billion and a maximum budget of ISK 2 billion |
| Duration | Resilience grants scheme: 31 December 2021
  Closure grants scheme: 30 September 2021 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Iceland Revenue and Customs |
| Tryggvagata 19 |
| 101 Reykjavík |
| ICELAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

10 May 2021

Case No

86805

Decision No

037/20/COL

EFTA State

Iceland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 amendments and prolongations of the Closure grants and Resilience grants schemes

Legal basis

Legislative Act amending Act No 38/2020 and Act No 160/2020

Type of measure

Schemes

Objective

Contribute to the continued economic activity of undertakings that have suffered loss of income during the COVID-19 pandemic and containment measures imposed to fight the spreading of the virus

Form of aid

Direct grants

Budget

Resilience grants scheme: Estimated budget of 20.5 billion

Closure grants scheme: Estimated budget of ISK 1 billion and a maximum budget of ISK 2 billion

Duration

Resilience grants scheme: 31 December 2021

Closure grants scheme: 30 September 2021

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Iceland Revenue and Customs

Tryggvagata 19

101 Reykjavík

ICELAND

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/decisions/

---
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19949 Filed:01/28/22 Entered:01/31/22 10:40:10 Desc: MainDocument Page 1 of 4Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19949 Filed:01/28/22 Entered:01/31/22 10:40:10 Desc: MainDocument Page 2 of 4Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19949 Filed:01/28/22 Entered:01/31/22 10:40:10 Desc: MainDocument Page 3 of 4Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19949 Filed:01/28/22 Entered:01/31/22 10:40:10 Desc: MainDocument Page 4 of 4
# C_2007126EN.01001801.xml

| 7.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/18

---

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections

(2007/C 126/11)

Date of adoption:

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: Case 61023

Title: Amendment to regulations concerning tax deductions for expenses of research and development (SkatteFUNN scheme)

Objective: The principal objective of the scheme is to stimulate enterprises to increase their efforts regarding R&D

Legal basis: § 16-40 of the Tax Law, Tax deduction for expenses for research and development ‘Skatteloven §. 16-40 Skattefradag for kostnader til forskning og utvikling (FoU-fradrag)’and ‘Forskrift til skatteloven § 16-40’

‘Skatteloven §. 16-40 Skattefradag for kostnader til forskning og utvikling (FoU-fradrag)’and ‘Forskrift til skatteloven § 16-40’

Budget/Duration: Overall budget: NOK 1 150 million per annum. The scheme is without a limited duration but is subject to the Norwegian parliament's annual tax decision.

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                           7,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,104
<INVENTORY>                                     80,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,137
<PP&E>                                          81,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,890
<BONDS>                                        141,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,566
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,427
<SALES>                                         98,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,123
<CGS>                                           61,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                       637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       955
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
42649.

#### FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. JACKSON.

*Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

Submitted March 6, 1967

Decided March 10, 1967.

Eberhaedt, Judge.

The question in this compensation case is whether the employee’s employer was an independent contractor or, by reason of controls exercised over him by the general contractor, an employee. Pattillo Construction Company, the general contractor, building an apartment complex, contracted with Hanes to install a commercial septic tank for the fixed sum of $4,700, to include all materials and labor. Jackson, one of Hanes’ employees, suffered fatal injuries while working on the job. After hearing, the board found that there had been only an oral contract between Pattillo and Hanes until after Jackson was injured and after the job was completed, when a formal contract was signed; that during progress of the work Pattillo had directed Hanes as to what portions were to be first accomplished, required him to rent and put additional equipment and men on the job in order to speed it up; that materials were purchased by and in the name of Pattillo and charged to its account, though paid by Hanes’ checks drawn on his account which were delivered to creditors by Pattillo, and concluded that this exercise of control was sufficient to make Hanes an employee of Pattillo so that Jackson was, in fact, an employee of Pattillo.

Though there is similarity in the facts of this case and those of *Bibb Manufacturing Co. v. Martin,*53 Ga. App. 137 (185 SE 137), more control appears to have been exercised here, particularly in the requiring of the rental of additional equipment and the hiring of more men.

On appeal to the superior court the award was affirmed. We conclude that the award was supported by competent evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*370*Long, Weinberg & Ansley, Charles L. Drew,*for appellants.

*Greene, Buckley, DeRieux, Moore & Jones, Burt DeRieux, James A. Eichelberger,*for appellee.
§ 347.107 Joint ventures. ( a ) *Joint ventures.* If a bank, directly or indirectly, acquires or holds an equity interest in a foreign organization that is a joint venture, and the bank or its affiliates do not control the foreign organization, no more than 10 percent of either the consolidated assets or revenues of the foreign organization may be attributable to activities that are not permissible under § 347.105(b).
( b ) *Joint venture defined.* For purposes of this section, the term “joint venture” means any organization in which 20 percent or more but not in excess of 50 percent of the voting equity interests, in the aggregate, are directly or indirectly held by a bank or its affiliates.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3147

To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in 

Ogden, Utah, as the ‘‘James V. Hansen Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Mr. CANNON (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, and Mr. MATHESON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 324 TwentyFifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the ‘‘James V. Hansen 

Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SEC. 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth 

5 Street in Ogden, Utah, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘James V. Hansen Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
2

•HR 3147 IH 

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the ‘‘James V. Hansen Federal Building’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2004.

Æ
Exhibit 10.4





                                   RESOLUTION

         A special meeting of the Board of Directors of Southern States Power
Company, Inc. was held at 8:30 a.m. April 16, 2001. At the telephonic meeting, a
majority of the Board approved the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the company has been diligently working for
the past several months to seek sources of funding to proceed with the
construction of one or more plants for the manufacture of biodiesel fuel to
service existing and new customers; and

WHEREAS, the Board members have been successful in negotiating and reaching a
mutually satisfactory agreement for the infusion of approximately one million
dollars ($1,000,000) in new capital which can be used by the Company for such
purposes, via a convertible debenture program involving the transfer of valuable
technology into the Company and a subsequent merger with Southern States Power
Company; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desire to compensate the individuals comprising
the Board who were responsible for arranging this financing and funding for the
Company, recognizing that these services by these Board members are not
adequately compensated by salaries or other monetary means, and that these
members are deserving of additional forms of compensation for their services
rendered to the Company in this regard.

THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED this 16th day of April, 2001 that in consideration of
the services performed and rendered by the Director whose name follows, the
Board of Directors hereby grants to the following Director options to purchase
and acquire additional shares of stock in the Company for and upon the
consideration shown:

                        Anthony K. Miller         250,000 shares

RESOLVED FURTHER, that this grant of options shall be exercisable for a period
of three years from the date hereof upon written notice and payment of the
correct amount in form acceptable to the Company. The price by which these
options can be exercisable is $0.01 per share, and any exercise must include all
shares granted hereby to the respective Director exercising its option.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that upon exercise of the options resolved hereby, the shares
shall be included as part of an S-8 registration with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under special rules pertaining to shares issued in
conjunction with services rendered to the Company.


                                              /s/ Lawrence W. Taggart
                                              ------------------------------
                                                  Lawrence W. Taggart, Secry of the Meeting