alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 120.105 Employees who must be tested. Each employee, including any assistant, helper, or individual in a training status, who performs a safety-sensitive function listed in this section directly or by contract (including by subcontract at any tier) for an employer as defined in this subpart must be subject to drug testing under a drug testing program implemented in accordance with this subpart. This includes full-time, part-time, temporary, and intermittent employees regardless of the degree of supervision. The safety-sensitive functions are: ( a ) Flight crewmember duties.
( b ) Flight attendant duties.
( c ) Flight instruction duties.
( d ) Aircraft dispatcher duties.
( e ) Aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance duties.
( f ) Ground security coordinator duties.
( g ) Aviation screening duties.
( h ) Air traffic control duties.
( i ) Operations control specialist duties.
[Doc. No. FAA-2008-0937, 74 FR 22653, May 14, 2009, as amended by Amdt. 120-2, 79 FR 9973, Feb. 21, 2014]
JARBIDGE 

RECORD OF DECISION 

AND 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

September 2015 

Prepared by:

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Twin Falls District

Jarbidge Field Office

Cooperating Agencies:

National Park Service

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Department of Lands

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Idaho State Department of Agriculture

Elko County Commissioners

Twin Falls County Commissioners
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
```

[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Notices]               
[Page 62624]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-146]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7201]

 
Waiver Pursuant to Section 7076(d)(2) of the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. 
F, P.L. 111-117) Relating to Assistance for the Government of 
Afghanistan

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, 
including under section 7076(d)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, P.L. 
111-117) (``the Act''), I hereby waive the requirement in section 
7076(d)(2) of the Act to certify that the Government of Afghanistan is 
cooperating fully with United States efforts against the Taliban and Al 
Qaeda and to reduce poppy cultivation and illicit drug trafficking and 
report that it is vital to the national security interests of the 
United States to do so.
    This waiver shall be reported to the Congress promptly and 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 28, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-25609 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-17-P
```
EXHIBIT A

Schedule of Claims Subject to the Four Hundred Ninety-Fourth Omnibus Objection 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21746-1 Filed:08/05/22 Entered:08/05/22 18:41:44 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 2
PRIORITY 

STATUS

Four Hundred Ninety-Fourth Omnibus Objection

Exhibit A - Claims to Be Reclassified

ASSERTED MODIFIED

NAME DEBTOR

PRIORITY 

CLAIM # STATUS AMOUNT DEBTOR AMOUNT

 1 ANTILLES OFFICE SUPPLY 49967 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 503(b)(9) $173.84 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Unsecured $173.84

PO BOX 3474

MANATÍ, PR 00674

Reason: Goods listed on claim were received outside of the prescribed 20-day receipt period under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) and thus not entitled to administrative priority.

 2 TECHNICAL POWER 32814 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 503(b)(9) $5,400.00 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Unsecured $5,400.00

SERVICES

P.O.BOX 3826

GUAYNABO, PR 00970

Reason: Claimant asserted administrative priority under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9), but proof of claim is not for goods sold and as such claimant is not entitled to administrative priority.

TOTAL $5,573.84 TOTAL $5,573.84

1

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21746-1 Filed:08/05/22 Entered:08/05/22 18:41:44 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-10056

Summary Calendar

__________________

HAROLD GRAY HAYS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-607-A

- - - - - - - - - -

July 22, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold Gray Hays appeals from the district court's 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his suit

against the United States and the Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-04, seeking return of, or

compensation for, property allegedly improperly seized by the DEA

and forfeited, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. 
No. 96-10056

-2-

Hays argues that the court erred in determining that it lacked

jurisdiction over the cash and personal property. He argues that

the court incorrectly determined that his claim was for damages,

because he is only seeking the return of the money and personal

property or its equivalent value. We affirm for essentially the

reason stated by the district court. See Hays v. DEA, No. 4:95-

CV-607-A (N.D. Tx. Jan. 3, 1996).

AFFIRMED.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2381 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 17:06:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2381 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 17:06:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2381 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 17:06:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2381 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 17:06:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2381 Filed:02/02/18 Entered:02/02/18 17:06:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
#### NEVITT *v.*G. AND M. McAROY.

Where the answer in chancery responds to the allegation in the bill it is to be taken as true unless contradicted, by more than oath against oath.

A husband who has squandered away the disposable means of his wife will have no relief in chancery, to take from the wife a note given for her money, on which she raises money for her maintenance, and to collect it under the pretence of its being lost.

The possession of a wife, is, in general, the possession of a husband.

Chancery. The bill states that the defendants gave their note to the complainant for $>224, which it is alleged is lost, and the greater part of the amount due. That the defendant obtained possession of the note by fraud, and now pretends it is paid, and that he has supplied the wife of the complainant and her children with necessaries, which have been fraudulently endorsed on the note, because in fact no such supplies were furnished, and prays answer, proof of any supplies furnished, and payment of the note.

The *answers*admit the giving of the note, deny that the defendants have it in possession, and claim to have furnished supplies to the complainant’s wife and children, the amount of which she has endorsed who still holds the note, and deny all fraud. There is no replication.

The *proof*is, that since the marriage of the complainant, he has squandered all his wife’s estate, having received between two and three thousand dollars of her money, and left her and the family destitute of the means of support and reduced to want. The note in question was given for the money of the wife. She and her child have been supported for three or four years by one Ear hart,, and McAroy had paid rent for the house she occupied.

P. *Ross*and Dunlevy, for the complainant.

*T. Corwin,*contra.

By the Court.

The answers are responsive to the allegations in the bill, and, uncontradicted must be taken as true. The contradictory evidence to destroy their effect must more than balance the oaths of the defendants. The evidence, instead of contradicting corroborates them. The case does not challenge much favor in a *court of equity. The*complainant, who has squandered away all the disposable means of his wife, and left her destitute for years, now asks to have a small sum that is due on,a note in her possession given for her money, and on which she occasionally supplies herself and child with necessaries, ordered to be paid over to him under the pretence that the note is lost! But why come into chancery? If he rely upon the mere loss of the note, he may recover in *290a court of law. If his wife has the note, *her*possession is in legal contemplation *his.*But, at any rate his hands are too foul to receive any aid in this Court. The bill must be dismissed at the complainant’s costs, saving to him what right he may have at law.
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-127580 on Form S-8,Registration Statement Nos. 333-36595, 333-42884 and 333-55994 on Form S-3 and RegistrationStatement No. 333-139581 on Form S-3ASR of our report dated February 28, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Post Properties, Inc. andPost Apartment Homes, L.P. and the effectiveness of Post Properties, Inc.’s and Post ApartmentHome, L.P.’s internal control over financial reporting (which reports express an unqualifiedopinion and include an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption Staff Accounting BulletinNo.108, Quantifying Misstatements in Financial Statements), appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-K of Post Properties, Inc. and Post Apartment Homes. L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/Deloitte & Touche LLPAtlanta, Georgia
Exhibit 32 (i)





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, I, James G. Rakes, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify 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 my knowledge and belief, that:





(1)  such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.








/s/ JAMES G. RAKESJames G. Rakes

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

May 9, 2011
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 4.2


                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                             TO THE CERADYNE, INC.
                       1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

     The following amendment to the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Ceradyne, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), was duly adopted by the
Board of Directors on March 26, 2001.

     The first sentence of Section 3 of the Company's 1995 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

               "An aggregate of 250,000 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value,
          of the Company may be sold under the Plan."
#### § 714.8 Are the early payment provisions, or interest rate provisions, applicable in leasing arrangements?

You are not subject to the early payment provisions set forth in § 701.21(c)(6) of this chapter. You are also not subject to the interest rate provisions in § 701.21(c)(7).
#### Lawrence Russell, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed March- 11, 1913.

A mere order made in the absence of the defendant that the jury be brought into court with their verdict, is not reversible error where it affirmatively appears that the defendant was present when the jury were asked if they had agreed on a verdict and when the verdict was received by the court.

Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record of Monroe County.

Judgment affirmed.

*L. A. Harris,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F. West*,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*for the State.

Whitfield,

J.—Russell was convicted of the felony of grand larceny and took writ of error. The only contention here is that during the absence of the defendant in jail the court ordered the jury brought into court, and the jury returned into court with a verdict. It is not contended that the verdict was tendered by the jury or received by the court in the absence of the defendant. It appears from the record that the defendant was arraigned in open court and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial was had and completed the same day. After the jury had been charged by the court and retired to consider their verdict, the court adjourned to 3 P. M, On reconvening the court at 3 P. M. the Sheriff notified -the court that the jury was ready to- come into court. The court ordered the jury to be brought into court and *313the jury came into court, the defendant not being present. The court then ordered the defendant to be brought into court. The defendant being in court the jury were asked if they had agreed on a verdict, and they having answered in the affirmative, returned the verdict.

In ordering the jury brought into court in the absence of the defendant the court took no steps in the cause that required the presence of the defendant. See Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19, 40 South. Rep. 183; Blocker v. State, 60 Fla. 4, 53 South. Rep. 715. The verdict was not asked for, or tendered or rendered in the absence of the defendant. It affirmatively appears that the defendant was present when the jury were asked if they had agreed on a verdict and when the verdict was received by the court; and on being polled in open court each juror stated the verdict rendered was his verdict. If the order merely directing the jury to be brought into court during the absence of the defendant was erroneous, it was clearly harmless to the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J.; concur.
Exhibit 99.13





CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON








Golden Star Resources Ltd.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Golden Star Resources Ltd.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) being named and identified as a “qualified person” in connection with the following documents, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 40-F”) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2016, (B) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2016, (C) the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on a Feasibility Study of the Wassa Open Pit Mine and Underground Project in Ghana" effective date December 31, 2014 and filed on May 8, 2015, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from such documents in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-211926, 333-175542, 333-169047, 333-118958, 333-105821 and 333-105820), as amended, and Registration Statement No. 333-196906 on Form F-10, as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.











/s/ Rod Redden


Rod Redden





March 30, 2017
# C_2015229EN.01000101.xml

| 14.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7623 — Pamplona/Partner in Pet Food Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 229/01)

On 6 July 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7623. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7623. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arnie Geller, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PREMIER EXHIBITIONS,
INC., the registrant;

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 and I am 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 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 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 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
<PAGE>

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls.

Date: July 14, 2005

/s/ Arnie Geller
----------------
Arnie Geller,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.94

                                  Amendment One
                                  ("Amendment")
                                     to the
             U.S. Value Added Reseller Agreement, Contract # V60012
                                    between
                       Storage Technology Corporation
                                      and
                           MTI Technology Corporation

Storage Technology Corporation ("StorageTek") and MTI Technology Corporation
("VAR") entered into a U.S. Value Added Reseller Agreement, Contract # V60012
dated March 4, 2002 (the "Agreement"). This Amendment modifies the Agreement
effective as of November 20, 2003. In the event of a conflict between this
Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall apply.

For good and valuable consideration, the parties now agree to the following:

1. The Business Page of the Agreement is modified as follows:

Territory: To include only the following states - MN, WI, IA, KS, OK, TX, LA,
MO, IL, IN, MI, KY, WV, OH, ME, NH, VT, NY, NJ, MA, RI, CT, MD, DC, DE, VA, NC,
SC, TN, AR, MS, AL, GA, FL

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment by their duly
authorized representatives, effective as of the date above.

STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION                  MTI TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

/s/ Micki Sugar                                 /s/ Todd Schaeffer
-------------------------------                 --------------------------------
       Signature                                        Signature

/s/ Micki Sugar                                 /s/ Todd Schaeffer
-------------------------------                 --------------------------------
    Printed or Typed Name                            Printed or Typed Name

         Sr. Para legal                             Chief Financial Officer
-------------------------------                 --------------------------------
             Title                                           Title

            11-26-03                                        11/25/03
-------------------------------                 --------------------------------
              Date                                            Date

MTI Amendment changing territory