alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.683 Crewmember and dispatcher record. ( a ) Each certificate holder shall— ( 1 ) Maintain current records of each crewmember and each aircraft dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only) that show whether the crewmember or aircraft dispatcher complies with the applicable sections of this chapter, including, but not limited to, proficiency and route checks, airplane and route qualifications, training, any required physical examinations, flight, duty, and rest time records; and
( 2 ) Record each action taken concerning the release from employment or physical or professional disqualification of any flight crewmember or aircraft dispatcher (domestic and flag operations only) and keep the record for at least six months thereafter.
( b ) Each certificate holder conducting supplemental operations shall maintain the records required by paragraph (a) of this section at its principal base of operations, or at another location used by it and approved by the Administrator.
( c ) Computer record systems approved by the Administrator may be used in complying with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19226, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-144, 43 FR 22649, May 25, 1978; Amdt. 121-241, 59 FR 42993, Aug. 19, 1994; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2615, Jan. 26, 1996]
§ 653.4 Internal controls. ( a ) The Corporation's board of directors must adopt an internal controls policy that provides adequate directions for, and identifies expectations in, establishing effective safety and soundness control over, and accountability for, the Corporation's operations, programs, and resources.
( b ) The internal controls system must address: ( 1 ) The efficiency and effectiveness of the Corporation's activities;
( 2 ) Safeguarding the assets of the Corporation;
( 3 ) Evaluating the reliability, completeness, and timely reporting of financial and management information;
( 4 ) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, regulatory directives, and the policies of the Corporation's board of directors and senior management;
( 5 ) The appropriate segregation of duties among the Corporation personnel so that personnel are not assigned conflicting responsibilities; and
( 6 ) The completeness and quality of information provided to the Corporation's board of directors.
( c ) The Corporation is responsible for establishing and implementing an effective system to identify internal controls weaknesses and taking action to correct detected weaknesses. The Corporation must document: ( 1 ) The process used to identify weaknesses,
( 2 ) Any found weaknesses, and
( 3 ) How identified weaknesses were addressed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO,

as a representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et al.

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO,

 as representative of

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER 

AUTHORITY

(“PREPA”),

Debtor.

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 4780-LTS

This document relates to

PREPA Title III case only

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number listed as a 

bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax 

identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto 

Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); and (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal 

Tax ID: 9686).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2364 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 11:57:47 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
The undersigned hereby certifies that, on February 1, 2018, the SIEMENS 

TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PUERTO RICO, S.E.’S LIMITED OBJECTION WITH 

RESPECT TO THE URGENT MOTION FOR POSTPETITION SECURED FINANCING, 

PRIMING LIENS, AND PROVIDING SUPERPRIORITY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 

CLAIMS [17-Bk-3283, Dkt. No. 2335] (the “Limited Objection”) was served upon all thencurrent ECF participants in this case via the Court’s CM/ECF system. The undersigned also 

hereby certifies that, on February 2, 2018, two (2) copies of the Motion was sent by U.S. mail to 

the Chambers of the Hon. Laura Taylor Swain at:

United States District Court

Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl St., Suite 3212

New York, NY 10007-1312

and one (1) copy to the U.S. Trustee for the District of Puerto Rico at:

US Trustee for the District of Puerto Rico

Edificio Ochoa

500 Tanca Street, Suite 301

San Juan, P.R. 00901-1922

Dated: February 2, 2018 SEPULVADO, MALDONADO &

COURET

By: s/José Javier Santos Mimoso

José Javier Santos Mimoso

USDC-PR Bar No. 208207

304 Ponce de León - Suite 990

San Juan, PR 00918

Telephone: 787-765-5656

Facsimile: 787-294-0073

Email: jsantos@smlawpr.com

Counsel for Siemens Transportation 

Partnership Puerto Rico, SE

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2364 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 11:57:47 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, John Hanna, Chief Executive Officer of The Fashion House Holdings, Inc., (the “Company”),certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Fashion House Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   *Date: May 15, 2006* */s/ John Hanna*  *By: John Hanna*  *Chief Executive Officer*
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 report of The Dwyer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Buckley,
Chief Financial 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 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.

By:\s\ Thomas Buckley
   ---------------------------------------
Thomas Buckley
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
         been provided to The Dwyer Group, Inc. and will be retained by The
         Dwyer Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request.
t

a

th

Frances Frances A

t

e

8

d

e

h

ll

a

k

R

s

e

e

Kimble Kimble Kimble c

)

i

u

Arden B

n

w

Arde m

r

s

n o

P

0 (

s

n

uc o

r

9

l

en

ro pi g

e

eh

Outc p

Br l

n

a

o

r p

F anklin i C

c

o

Ie

H

M

n

di

b

t

urn

Vaughn S

Vaughn e

e

n

Kratz Kra

d

tz r

n

a

 Mt

n

o

B

y

R

o

uo

M tche l s

e

e

i l u

i

e

s

l

G

w

k

n

v

i

l

t

r

a

e

r

l

o

c

e

o

h

N

o

l

Triangle w

F

M

a

Morgan e

ti

l

a

i

a

n

rs

v

g

M

A

S

J

g

i

u

n

C

a

Ryan

l

i

li Ryan

d

n

H

n

e

n

S

o

i

m

Phillip t

hillip e

g

P

we

O

Stone

ni

r

h

Stone Gray Eagle

N

c

Murphy n

h

s

eg

ansma a

a W

r

J u

Ki d

a

n H

Riversid

g

e

te ag

Cambridge h out

Brockton S

Arlin

¦ ̈§ I-90

gto

n

o

n

Frontage

ot

c

l i g

ri

E l ngton n

M

i

ton

hs

g

a

Arlin

W

drahc

n

s

r

r

g

O

ub

nil

o

li

C

B

Cr eu Bl Old

a

S llow

onora

Wi

Q

sta

u

h

a

S

Bowman

nta

llisonJe

Bollinger n

Bl

le e

u

d

e

oa

 C

ol

reek

C

st R re lcl

na

Hi

Mari

er li Col

yTurnberr Tro

Briarwood

stwick o

Pre n

Ma

d c

c

Kin ai

ta

P

vi

e

s

n

wns

h

o

ll

l

e

h

hurchi l D

e

K

c

z

C

e

re

l

w T

e

s

o

z

o

Rexe

J

o

e

en

oll

n

H

D

e

Sta

H

r 

el

P

36 31 e

as

n

s

e

South Hills Extensive

Recreation Management Area

Alternatives A and B

R26E

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

Miles

Map 93

Wyoming

T

1

S

Location Map

Montana

Ü

Billings 

Field 

Office

Map scale 1:40,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

Billings

90

r

stone Ri v e

low

l e Y

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Legend

South Hills ERMA

Roads

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

Yellowstone River

Private 

Public Lands Survey System
#### Peninsular Naval Stores Company, a Corporation, Appellant, v. The Florida Fruit & Truck Land Company, a Corporation, S. R. Fields, and State Bank of Kissimmee, a Banking Corporation, Appellees.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Daniel & Boggs, for Appellant.

Appeal dismissed on praecipe of counsel for appellant, on May 31st, 1913.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GOTO.COM
INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,914
<SECURITIES>                                    93,409
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,135
<PP&E>                                          15,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,774
<SALES>                                         26,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,809
<CGS>                                            6,213
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   164
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,261)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,262)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,262)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)


</TABLE>
#### GOTHAM CAN CO. v. UNITED STATES

[68 C. Cls. 749; 281 U. S. 706]

Petition for writ of certiorari was *dismissed-*by the Supreme Court June 2, 1930.
[Cite as Mention v. Car-X, 2011-Ohio-6383.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO 

CHARLES MENTION, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 vs. 

CAR-X, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

APPEAL NO. C-110335 

TRIAL NO. 09CV-22296 

 

O P I N I O N.

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court 

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 14, 2011 

Eric D. Bender, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

2

SYLVIA SIEVE HENDON, Judge. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Charles Mention filed a complaint against defendantappellee Car-X, alleging negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of 

the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01 et seq. The municipal court referred 

the case to a magistrate who dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute and entered 

judgment for Car-X. Mention objected to the magistrate’s decision, asserting that he had 

not received notice of the trial date or of the possibility of a dismissal. The trial court 

overruled his objections. Mention now appeals. 

{¶2} In a single assignment of error, Mention argues that the trial court erred by 

dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute without giving him notice as required by 

Civ.R. 41. We agree. 

{¶3} Under Civ.R. 41(B)(1), where a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action, the court 

may, after notice to plaintiff’s counsel, dismiss the action. Under the rule, notice is a 

prerequisite to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Logsdon v. Nichols (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 

124, 128, 647 N.E.2d 1361. The notice requirement allows a party in default the opportunity 

to explain or correct a default before a dismissal. Id.; Penaranda v. DNJ Holdings, LLC, 1st 

Dist. No. C-090739, 2010-Ohio-5848. Thus, before a trial court may dismiss a case for 

failure to prosecute, the court must provide notice of its intent to do so to the plaintiff’s 

counsel. Perotti v. Ferguson (1983), 7 Ohio St.3d 1, 454 N.E.2d 951, syllabus; Logsdon, 

supra, at 128; Penaranda, supra. 

{¶4} The record discloses no notice to plaintiff’s counsel or to the plaintiff that the 

action was subject to dismissal. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s 

action. 

{¶5} Because the dismissal entered in this case did not comply with the notice 

provisions of Civ.R. 41(B)(1), we sustain the assignment of error, reverse the judgment of 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

3

the trial court, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance 

with law. 

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

DINKELACKER, P.J., and CUNNINGHAM, J., concur. 

Please Note: 

 The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
#### § 107.105 Limitations on operations over human beings.

Except as provided in §§ 107.39(a) and (b) and 107.145, a remote pilot in command may conduct operations over human beings only in accordance with the following, as applicable: § 107.110 for Category 1 operations; §§ 107.115 and 107.120 for Category 2 operations; §§ 107.125 and 107.130 for Category 3 operations; or § 107.140 for Category 4 operations.
Editorial Note on Subpart I of Part 121
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart I of part 121 appear at 60 FR 65928, Dec. 20, 1995.

§ 121.199 Nontransport category airplanes: Takeoff limitations. ( a ) No person operating a nontransport category airplane may take off that airplane at a weight greater than the weight that would allow the airplane to be brought to a safe stop within the effective length of the runway, from any point during the takeoff before reaching 105 percent of minimum control speed (the minimum speed at which an airplane can be safely controlled in flight after an engine becomes inoperative) or 115 percent of the power off stalling speed in the takeoff configuration, whichever is greater.
( b ) For the purposes of this section— ( 1 ) It may be assumed that takeoff power is used on all engines during the acceleration;
( 2 ) Not more than 50 percent of the reported headwind component, or not less than 150 percent of the reported tailwind component, may be taken into account;
( 3 ) The average runway gradient (the difference between the elevations of the endpoints of the runway divided by the total length) must be considered if it is more than one-half of 1 percent;
( 4 ) It is assumed that the airplane is operating in standard atmosphere; and
( 5 ) The *effective length of the runway* for takeoff means the distance from the end of the runway at which the takeoff is started to a point at which the obstruction clearance plane associated with the other end of the runway intersects the runway centerline.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19198, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-132, 41 FR 55475, Dec. 20, 1976]
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-30062) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan of Cadabra Inc.,
assumed by GoTo.com, (Form S-8 No. 333-36230) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Award
Plan and 1999 Executive Stock Award Plan of AuctionRover.com, Inc. assumed by
GoTo.com and (Form S-8 No. 333-76415) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan and the
1999 Employees Stock Purchase Plan of GoTo.com, of our report dated February 6,
2001, with respect to the financial statements of GoTo.com included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 8, 2001
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. SETH SUNDBERG, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-10338 D.C. No. 5:09-cr-00928-JF-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 17, 2012 ** San Francisco, California Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Defendant-appellant Seth S undberg (“Sundberg”) appeals the district court’s entry of judgment on his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

# FILED
OCT 22 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Proce dure 11(b)(1)(K), a judge must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the court’s authority to order restitution. Despite th is express requirement, a judge’s failure to comply “is harmless error if it does not aff ect substantial rights.” Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 11(h). We have held that a district court’s failure to advise a defendant of its restitution authority is harmless if “the de fendant was advised he was subject to a fine in an amount in excess of the restitution imposed.” United States v. Crawford , 169 F.3d 590, 592 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasi s added). In this case, Sundberg admitted the facts of the indictment, in cluding his unlawful receipt of a $5 million tax refund. Although the district court fa iled to advise Sundberg of its restitution authority, the court affirmatively warnedSundberg that he could face “a $250,000 fine or twice the value of the gross ga in or loss,” thus putting Sundberg on notice that he could suffer a fine in excess of $10 million. Because this figure is far higher than Sundberg’s eventual $2,488, 613.38 restitution order, the error was harmless. AFFIRMED.