alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification by Chief Executive Officer
 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 on Form 10-Q of Capital Bank Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Eugene Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/R. Eugene Taylor
 R. Eugene Taylor
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 May 16, 2011
 
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. GT00-29-000]

Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become effective April 28, 2000:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 6A

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 8

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 9

Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed simply to update its System Maps with the most recent information available.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public                           ( print page 26598)                        inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11354  Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**DATE DECRIPTION OF SERVICE** 

5/10/2015Aircraft Firmware Upgrade to v1.2.1.06

Remote Controller Firmware Upgrade to v1.2.1.06 Battery Firmware Upgrade to v1.2.1.06 5/11/2015 Post Upgrade Flight Test**TYPE PERFORMED BY**  **Result**

USER Nigel Martin Success USER Nigel Martin Success USER Nigel Martin Success USER Nigel Martin Success
#### § 198.11 Change in status of aircraft.

In the event of sale, lease, confiscation, requisition, total loss, or other change in the status of an aircraft or insurable items covered by insurance under this part, the insured party must notify the office administering the Aviation Insurance Program before, or as soon as practicable after, the change in status.
§ 27.1337 Powerplant instruments. ( a ) *Instruments and instrument lines.* ( 1 ) Each powerplant instrument line must meet the requirements of §§ 27.- 961 and 27.993.
( 2 ) Each line carrying flammable fluids under pressure must— ( i ) Have restricting orifices or other safety devices at the source of pressure to prevent the escape of excessive fluid if the line fails; and
( ii ) Be installed and located so that the escape of fluids would not create a hazard.
( 3 ) Each powerplant instrument that utilizes flammable fluids must be installed and located so that the escape of fluid would not create a hazard.
( b ) *Fuel quantity indicator.* Each fuel quantity indicator must be installed to clearly indicate to the flight crew the quantity of fuel in each tank in flight. In addition— ( 1 ) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read “zero” during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under § 27.959;
( 2 ) When two or more tanks are closely interconnected by a gravity feed system and vented, and when it is impossible to feed from each tank separately, at least one fuel quantity indicator must be installed; and
( 3 ) Each exposed sight gauge used as a fuel quantity indicator must be protected against damage.
( c ) *Fuel flowmeter system.* If a fuel flowmeter system is installed, each metering component must have a means for bypassing the fuel supply if malfunction of that component severely restricts fuel flow.
( d ) *Oil quantity indicator.* There must be means to indicate the quantity of oil in each tank— ( 1 ) On the ground (including during the filling of each tank); and
( 2 ) In flight, if there is an oil transfer system or reserve oil supply system.
( e ) Rotor drive system transmissions and gearboxes utilizing ferromagnetic materials must be equipped with chip detectors designed to indicate the presence of ferromagnetic particles resulting from damage or excessive wear. Chip detectors must— ( 1 ) Be designed to provide a signal to the device required by § 27.1305(v) and be provided with a means to allow crewmembers to check, in flight, the function of each detector electrical circuit and signal.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
(Secs. 313(a), 601, and 603, 72 Stat. 752, 775, 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; sec. 6(c) 49 U.S.C. 1655(c))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-12, 42 FR 15046, Mar. 17, 1977; Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34214, Sept. 2, 1988; Amdt. 27-37, 64 FR 45095, Aug. 18, 1999]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 1 3 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk January 1 3 , 2017

154 913 ( 1 6)

MICHAEL SULLIVAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

, SC: 15 4 913

v COA: 334273

L ivingston CC: 1 4

- 0 06162

- DO

DENISE SULLIVAN

, Defendant

- Appellant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time

for filing his answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 27 , 2017

.
§ 29.1401 Anticollision light system. ( a ) *General.* If certification for night operation is requested, the rotorcraft must have an anticollision light system that— ( 1 ) Consists of one or more approved anticollision lights located so that their emitted light will not impair the crew's vision or detract from the conspicuity of the position lights; and
( 2 ) Meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
( b ) *Field of coverage.* The system must consist of enough lights to illuminate the vital areas around the rotorcraft, considering the physical configuration and flight characteristics of the rotorcraft. The field of coverage must extend in each direction within at least 30 degrees above and 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the rotorcraft, except that there may be solid angles of obstructed visibility totaling not more than 0.5 steradians.
( c ) *Flashing characteristics.* The arrangement of the system, that is, the number of light sources, beam width, speed of rotation, and other characteristics, must give an effective flash frequency of not less than 40, nor more than 100, cycles per minute. The effective flash frequency is the frequency at which the rotorcraft's complete anticollision light system is observed from a distance, and applies to each sector of light including any overlaps that exist when the system consists of more than one light source. In overlaps, flash frequencies may exceed 100, but not 180, cycles per minute.
( d ) *Color.* Each anticollision light must be aviation red and must meet the applicable requirements of § 29.1397.
( e ) *Light intensity.* The minimum light intensities in any vertical plane, measured with the red filter (if used) and expressed in terms of “effective” intensities must meet the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section. The following relation must be assumed: where: *I* *e* = effective intensity (candles). *I(t)* = instantaneous intensity as a function of time. *t* 2−*t* l = flash time interval (seconds). Normally, the maximum value of effective intensity is obtained when *t* *2* and *t* *1* are chosen so that the effective intensity is equal to the instantaneous intensity at *t* 2 and *t* 1.
( f ) *Minimum effective intensities for anticollision light.* Each anticollision light effective intensity must equal or exceed the applicable values in the following table:
Angle above or below the horizontal plane
Effective intensity (candles) 0° to 5°
150 5° to 10°
90 10° to 20°
30 20° to 30°
15
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-7, 36 FR 12972, July 10, 1971; Amdt. 29-11, 41 FR 5290, Feb. 5, 1976]
#### MARTIN v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 21st, 1915.)

Appeal from Dale Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Sollie.

No counsel marked for appellant. Robert C. Brick-ell, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
No. 16,613.

#### The First National Bank of Seymour *v.*Brodhecker, Treasurer, etc.

State Board oe Tax *Commissioners.-*— Jurisdiction.—Where the State board of tax commissioners assumed to raise the assessment of the property of a national bank, made by the county board of review, there being no appeal from the action of the county board, the State board had no jurisdiction, and its action was a nullity.

From the Jackson Circuit Court.

O. *H.*Montgomery, for appellant.

*B. H. Burrell,*for appellee.

Coffey, J.

This was an action by the appellant against the appellee, as treasurer of Jackson county, to enjoin the collection of a tax.

It appears, from the complaint in the cause, that the appellant is a national bank, duly organized under the laws of the United States. It was duly assessed on all *694its property in Jackson county for the year 1891. Without any appeal, the State Board of Tax Commissioners assumed to raise the assessment made by the county board of review, and this action was brought, in the Jackson Circuit Court, to enjoin the collection of the tax assessed on the increased value of the appellant’s property, placed, upon it by the State Board of Tax Commissioners. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint.

Filed May 11, 1894.

In this ruling the Jackson Circuit Court erred. In the absence of an appeal, the State Board of Tax Commissioners had no jurisdiction over the matter, and its action was a mere nullity. *Cummings*v. *Stark,*34 N. E. Rep. 444; *Jones, Treas.,*v. *Rushville Nat’l Bank,*138 Ind.-.

Judgment reversed, with directions to the Jackson Circuit Court to overrule the demurrer of the appellee to the appellant’s complaint.
# Official Journal C 30/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 30 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6520 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 30

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6520 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 30/01 | Euro exchange rates — 19 January 2022 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 30/01

Euro exchange rates — 19 January 2022

1

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigendum to INFORMATION NOTICE – PUBLIC CONSULTATION – Geographical Indications from El Salvador to be protected as Geographical Indications in the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 522 of 28 December 2021 ) | 2 |

Corrigenda

Corrigendum to INFORMATION NOTICE – PUBLIC CONSULTATION – Geographical Indications from El Salvador to be protected as Geographical Indications in the European Union (Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 522 of 28 December 2021 )

(Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 522 of 28 December 2021 )

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Orderissued February 

# 1 ,2013

In The 

## C!tnurt nf AppeaLs 1Jiiftq 1.Bistritt nf Wcxas at 1.Ballas No. 05-11-00884-CV
IN RE PHILLIPPE PADIEU, Relator Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial CourtCause No. 219-82277-07 

### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Evans Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator's petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDERthat relator bear the costs ofthis original proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                                        1,232
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                62,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             64,106
<PP&E>                                                    1,901,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                              447,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            1,518,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       607,756
<BONDS>                                                   2,651,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                     16,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               (1,757,293)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              1,518,012
<SALES>                                                     402,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            402,175
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            546,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           57,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (201,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (201,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (201,716)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.01)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 12.1**

**Certification**

I, Carlos Salazar Lomelín, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Fomento Económico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto 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 from operations andcash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifyingofficer(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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 21, 2015 

 

 
Exh. 12.1-1
#### E. P. Rentz, *Appellant,*v. Granger & Lewis, *Appellees.*

3. Equity will not take jurisdiction where there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law. But where the remedy at law is not full, complete and adequate, or where complete relief at law is doubtful and a more ample and appropriate remedy may be thereby afforded, equity will take cognizance and give relief if it can be done in accordance with recognized principles of chancery jurisdiction and procedure.

2. Where a bill of complaint contains allegations of overreaching misrepresentations and resulting injury to complainant in the settlement of partnership affairs, and seeks a rescinding of a written instrument, a matter for equity cognizance appears.

*446Appealed from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

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

*Hocker*& *Duval*and *H. M. Hampton,*for Appellant;

*Toomer*& *Reynolds*and *P. H. Odom,*for Appellees.

Whitfield, C. J.

This appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to a bill in equity on the ground that an adequate remedy is afforded in an action at law.

Equity will not take jurisdiction where there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law. But where the remedy at law is not full, complete and adequate, or where complete relief at law is doubtful and a more ample and appropriate remedy may be thereby afforded, equity will take cognizance and give relief if it can be done in accordance with recognized principles of chancery jurisdiction and procedure. See Carter v. Bennett, 6 Fla. 214; Gordon v. Simonton, 10 Fla. 179.

The bill contains allegations of overreaching, misrepresentations and resulting injury to complainant in the settlement of partnership affairs, and seeks a rescinding of a written instrument, and an accounting as to partnership affairs. Without going into a critical analysis of the allegations of the bill upon this general demurrer, it is clear that a subject of equity cognizance appears, as to which a court of law cannot give full, complete and adequate relief.

The order appealed from is reversed.

Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.

*447Taylor, J., not participating.