alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, that:

         -        the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
                  13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended, and

         -        the information contained in the report fairly presents, on
                  all material respects, the Corporation's financial condition
                  and results of operations.

/s/ Duane J. Costenbader
Duane J. Costenbader, Principal Financial Officer

Dated:  August 11, 2003

                                       28
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1046 PLATE 18

EXPLANATION 3
Lithologic symbols NEYSEY
4 Sou. 27, T. 20 35., mR. 20 C
Saha NWY4SE% © 900 epm
See. 20, T. 28S., R. 20 E. r
Clay ©2900 cpm’ Elevation, in feet
. 0
Phosphate nodules Bee a
West East
5 eee 2 |
; je
sm psd 0 Z SEUSE% NWYSEY
Calcareous clay c. 17, T. 28 S., R. 20 E. y 5 Sec. 35, T. 285.,R. 20E. Sec. 7, T. 29S., R. 21E.
=
=
2-800 cpm oid Fi © 900 1800 cpm © 900 1800 cpm
Limestone [- 80
PLEISTOCENE
Terrace sand
No recovery, core lost
A mixture of symbols indicates Bes
a mixed lithology ase
b73ee
OE
Other symbols age
Lithologic correlation
Stratigraphic correlation L 40
Limits of aluminum and we
calcium phosphate zones mie
ws
— E
Alternating symbols indicate two or Se
three of the above correlations SRR a a
follow the same line _— eae eae 4 €
ee ae
ea az
F 4 =z
Section of core from which fossils
were identified L 20
35 Scole,in feet
°
Somple number ond interval sampled e
from lot 2545 aS
© _900¢pm 5 8 zg
se
10 a
8
Ae
age ft
Sea level

Trace of gamma-ray log showing
intensity of radiation; cpm?
counts per minute 20

CROSS SECTION 3, LAND-PEBBLE PHOSPHATE DISTRICT, FLORIDA

466352 © - 59 (In pocket)
Document # 1 2

- 084 RC

November 6

, 201 2

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M

- 30

West Building ground floor,

Room W12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10242 from 14 CFR (FAR Section)

– Part:

121.434 (c)(1)(ii ) E xpiring on 04/30/2013.

Dear Sirs:

Thank you for granting Spirit Airlines Exemption No. 10242 from 14 CFR (FAR Section)

– Part:

121.434 (c)(1)(ii) on 4/12/2011.

Spirit Airlines respectfully requests an extension for exemption No. 10242 (Docket Number

FAA

- 2011

- 0253) which expires on 4/30/2013. Please extend this exemption for the period of

two years (4/30/2015).

This exemption has allowed our company to focus on the timely and competent completion of

the observation flight and better utilization of qualifying PICs.

Should you have any questions or if you require additional information about this request,

please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Joseph T. Houghton

VP Flight Operations 2800 Executive Way

Miramar, FL 33025

954

- 447

- 4947

954

- 447

- 8081 fax

Spiritair.com
#### Harkey *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Lam.*

(Decided May 13, 1915.

68 South. 698.)

*Criminal Law; Sentence.*— Where the jury found defendant guilty of violating the prohibition law, and fixed no fine as they might have done, the court was without power under section 7630, Code 1907, to sentence defendant to pay the fine.

Appeal from Tuscalooosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

John Harkey was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed as to the conviction but reversed and remanded as to the sentence.

*202No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

There is no bill of exceptions, and no errors are apparent on the face of the record, except as to' the sentence, which is erroneous.

The charge against defendant was for a violation of the prohibition laws in selling, keeping for sale, or other unlawful disposition, of intoxicating liquors. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, but fixed no fine, which they might have done under section 3 of the act of August 9, 1909 (Gen. & Local Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 9), but which they refrained from doing, as we must infer, under the power of section 7630 of the Code, which provides that: “When [as is the case here] an offense may be punished, in addition to a fine, by imprisonment or hard labor for the county, the jury shall not be required to impose a fine; but, if in their judgment, the defendant should’only be punished in some other mode, may, in such case, only find him guilty and leave the imposition of. the punishment to the court.”

The court, however, in the imposition of the punishment in such case, cannot assess a fine, as this was the prerogative of the jury, but is limited to the imprisonment of defendant in the county jail or to his confinement at hard labor for the county.—Gen. & Local Acts 1909, p. 9, § 3; *Spiver v. State,*105 Ala. 126; 16 South. 706; *Melton v. State,*45 Ala. 56; *Nelson v. State,*46 Ala. 186; *Stanfield v. State,*3 Ala. App. 58, 57 South. 402.

Here, the court not only imposed a hard-labor sentence of two months, but also assessed a fine of $75 against defendant.

*203The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed hack to the adjudication of guilt, to the end that the court may impose a punishment and sentence in compliance with the requirements of the law as indicated.

Affirmed in part, that is, as to the judgment of guilt, and reversed and remanded in part, that is, as to the punishment and sentence.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3927 

To establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a permit, 

license, or approval for a highway or public transportation project, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2020 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial 

review of a permit, license, or approval for a highway 

or public transportation project, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 139(l) of title 23, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘150 days’’ each 

6 place it appears and inserting ‘‘90 days’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

8 (1) Section 330(e) of title 23, United States 

9 Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3927 IS

1 (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘150 

2 days’’ and inserting ‘‘90 days’’; and 

3 (B) in paragraph (3)(B)(i), by striking 

4 ‘‘150 days’’ and inserting ‘‘90 days’’. 

5 (2) Section 24201(a)(4) of title 49, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘of 150 days’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-40 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 3.4



|            |  |  |  |                       
|----------- |  |  |  | ----------------------
|FORM NO. 7a |  |  |  | Registration No. 32581

[GRAPHIC]

BERMUDA

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT OF

MEMORANDUM OF INCREASE OF SHARE CAPITAL

THIS IS TO CERTIFYthat a
Memorandum of Increase of Share Capital of

Global Crossing Limited

was delivered to the Registrar of Companies on the 25thday of June, 2007 in accordance with section 45(3) of the Companies Act 1981 (the Act).

[SEAL] Given under my hand and the Seal of the REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES this 29thday of June, 2007

|                                 
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|/s/ Maria Boodram                
|for Acting Registrar of Companies



|                           |  |     |             
|-------------------------- |  | --- | ------------
|Capital prior to increase: |  | US$ | 5,350,000.00
|Amount of increase:        |  | US$ | 250,000.00  
|Present Capital:           |  | US$ | 5,600,000.00
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10791]



[[Page 25341]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: April 28, 2000.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Michael J. Moody, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6154, MSC 9609, Bethesda, MD 20892-9609, 301-443-3367.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 24, 2000.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-10791 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40883

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MELBIN RUBEN ALCANTARA MEJIA, also known as Melbin Ruben 

Alcantara,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-1027-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melbin Ruben Alcantara Mejia appeals the 30-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of illegal reentry 

after removal. We affirm.

Alcantara Mejia reiterates his challenge to the eight-level enhancement 

imposed under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) based on his Texas conviction for 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40883 Document: 00512890490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 13-40883

delivery of cocaine, for which he received a six-month sentence. In his view, 

the Texas conviction did not qualify as a drug trafficking offense because 

Texas’s definition of delivery is broader than the definition of a drug trafficking 

offense under § 2L1.2. He asserts that the Texas offense of delivery may be 

committed by “administering” a controlled substance. He further contends 

that, for the same reasons, the Texas offense does not qualify as an aggravated 

felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). 

Alcantara Mejia’s claims are foreclosed. See United States v. TeranSalas, 767 F.3d 453, 460-62 (5th Cir. 2014). In Teran-Salas, we held that there 

is no “realistic probability that Texas would prosecute [the] crime under an 

‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing’ 

or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” 767 F.3d at 460; see 

id. at 458-62. Further, “[e]ven without considering the drug type or quantity, 

conviction under the administer prong is not a realistic probability because no 

previous Texas case has involved a conviction under this prong.” Id. at 461. 

Therefore, we concluded that the Texas offense of possession with intent to 

deliver cocaine was a drug trafficking offense under the Guidelines and an 

aggravated felony under § 1326(b). Id. at 461-62 & n.5. By parity of reasoning, 

the Texas offense of delivery of cocaine is a drug trafficking offense under the 

Guidelines and an aggravated felony within the meaning of § 1326(b). See id. 

at 457 n.1, 461-62 & n.5.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-40883 Document: 00512890490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
§ 120.103 General. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this subpart is to establish a program designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the use of prohibited drugs by employees who perform safety-sensitive functions.
( b ) *DOT procedures.* ( 1 ) Each employer shall ensure that drug testing programs conducted pursuant to 14 CFR parts 65, 91, 121, and 135 comply with the requirements of this subpart and the “Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs” published by the Department of Transportation (DOT) (49 CFR part 40).
( 2 ) An employer may not use or contract with any drug testing laboratory that is not certified by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the National Laboratory Certification Program.
( c ) *Employer responsibility.* As an employer, you are responsible for all actions of your officials, representatives, and service agents in carrying out the requirements of this subpart and 49 CFR part 40.
( d ) *Applicable Federal Regulations.* The following applicable regulations appear in 49 CFR or 14 CFR: ( 1 ) 49 CFR Part 40—Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs
( 2 ) 14 CFR: ( i ) § 67.107—First-Class Airman Medical Certificate, Mental.
( ii ) § 67.207—Second-Class Airman Medical Certificate, Mental.
( iii ) § 67.307—Third-Class Airman Medical Certificate, Mental.
( iv ) § 91.147—Passenger carrying flight for compensation or hire.
( v ) § 135.1—Applicability
( e ) Falsification. No individual may make, or cause to be made, any of the following: ( 1 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any application of a drug testing program.
( 2 ) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or report that is made, kept, or used to show compliance with this part.
( 3 ) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purposes, of any report or record required to be kept by this part.
[Doc. No. FAA-2008-0937, 74 FR 22653, May 14, 2009; Amdt. 120-0A, 75 FR 3153, Jan. 20, 2010]
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

BRL HOLDINGS, INC.

CURRENCY                                    US

FISCAL YEAR END                     JUN-30-2004
PERIOD START                        JUL-01-2003
PERIOD END                          SEP-30-2003
CASH                                      1,318
SECURITIES                                0
RECEIVABLES                               19,500
ALLOWANCE                                 0
INVENTORY                                 0
CURRENT ASSETS                            20,818
PP & E                                    0
DEPRECIATION                              0
TOTAL ASSETS                              23,535
CURRENT LIABILITIES                       867,398
BONDS                                     0
PREFERRED-MANDATORY                       0
PREFERRED                                 0
COMMON STOCK                              499,062
OTHER SECURITIES                          0
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY              23,535
SALES                                     0
TOTAL REVENUE                             0
CGS                                       0
TOTAL COSTS                               155,009
OTHER EXPENSES                            (361,962)
LOSS PROVISION                            0
INTEREST EXPENSE                          0
INCOME TAX                                0
INCOME-PRETAX                             361,962
INCOME-CONTINUING                         (155,009)
DISCONTINUED                              0
EXTRAORDINARY                             0
CHANGES                                   0
NET INCOME                                206,953
EPS-PRIMARY                               (0.01)
EPS-DILUTED                               (0.01)


                                    18 of 18
# Materials NotIncluded in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1230 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM088AD
ALS P3, CMR --- 7/31/08 CMR 955.3019/92,116 --- 7/31/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained inthe Supplemental AD Docket MAY BEVIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 LindAve. Sw., Renton, WA 98057 425.2271221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9a.m. and 3pm., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Dale: 03/05/2008
#### Ab Penton, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

1. An accused has the right to an impartial jury, but not to any particular persons as jurors. When no injury to the defendant has resulted therefrom, an irregularity not amounting to the denial of a substantial right in the selec*412tion and empanelling of the jurors will not avail on objection and exception.

2. Where a special venire drawn in one criminal case has been used in another case, and there is nothing to indicate injury or prejudice to the defendant, such proceeding will not cause a reversal of a judgment of conviction.

3. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit leading questions, and such discretion is not reviewable on writ of error.

4. Where there is evidence to sustain a verdict and no material errors of law or procedure that could reasonably have injuriously affected a substantial right of the defendant appear in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court, for Santa Rosa County.

The fads in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

H. S. Laird, for Plaintiff in Error;

*Park*Trammell, Attorney General, and *C O. Andrews,*for the State.

Whitfield, C. J.

Frank M. Penton and Ab Penton were jointly indicted for the murder of George Allen. The former was acquitted; and the latter was convicted of manslaughter, and took writ of error. Several special venires were exhausted in securing a jury. Over the objection of the defendant the court directed that the special venire ordered in another case be used in this case. It does not appear that the special venire used over objection was not legally formed or that any of the jurors *413taken from it were improper jurors, or that the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges, and was obliged to take an objectionable juror because he-.liad no further peremptory challenges.

An objection on the ground that it was leading was to any particular persons as jurors. When no injury to the defendant has resulted therefrom an irregularity not amounting to the denial of a substantial right in the selection and empanelling of the jurors will not avail on objection and exception. McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 South. Rep. 348; Young v. State, 63 Fla. 55, 58 South. Rep. 188. There is nothing to indicate that the defendant was injured or that he has been denied a substantial right in the use of the special venire drawn for another case.

An objection on the ground that it was leading was overruled to the following question asked by the court: “Dr. Smith, did George Allen express the belief to you that he was going to die?” It is within the discretion of the trial Judge to permit leading questions, and stich discretion is not reviewable on writ of error. Anthony v. State, 44 Fla. 1, 32 South. Rep. 818; Johnson v. State and Padgett v. State, decided this term.

There is evidence to sustain the verdict, and no material errors of procedure that could reasonably have injuriously affected a substantial right of the defendant appear in the transcript.

The judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Thomas
      W. Martin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of ICON Capital
      Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant in connection with the Annual
      Report of ICON Income Fund Eight A L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K/A
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report") certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





1.
            The
                Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m);
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the Partnership.








*Dated:
      December 11, 2007*





*/s/
      Thomas W. Martin*


Thomas
      W.
      Martin


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the General Partner


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


General
      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight A L.P.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41

                                AcSentient, Inc.
                                 110 Doric Court
                              Morrisville, NC 27560

April 26, 2002

Eastern Virginia Medical School
825 Fairfax Avenue
Norfolk, VA 23507

Re:     Sale of Certain Assets of AcSentient, Inc. to ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Dear Dr. Bell:

         Pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement, AcSentient, Inc.
("AcSENTIENT") is selling to ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("ISTA") certain assets
including the License Agreement by and between Eastern Virginia Medical School,
dated January 29, 2002 (the "LICENSE").

         AcSentient is assigning to ISTA and ISTA will assume from AcSentient,
all of AcSentient's rights and obligations under the License, and AcSentient
will be released from any further liability under the License. This assignment
and assumption will be effective upon the closing of the transactions
contemplated by the Asset Purchase Agreement.

         AcSentient requests your consent to the assignment of the License to
ISTA upon the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Asset
Purchase Agreement. Please indicate your consent to the assignment by signing in
the space indicated below. Please call me at (919) 659-2421 if you have any
questions. We appreciate your cooperation.

                                                  Sincerely,

                                                  Lisa T. Grimes
                                                  President and CEO

Sign here to consent:

Eastern Virginia Medical School

By: /s/ J. Sumner Bell, III, M.D.
   ------------------------------

Name: J. Sumner Bell, III, M.D.

Title: President

Date: April 26, 2002