alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Actuate Corporation: 

 

We consent to incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-113545, 333-104101, 333-84582, 333-62600, 333-56906, 333-33720, 333-73015, and 333-59959) and in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-67220 and 333-34410) of Actuate Corporationof our report dated March 16, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Actuate Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income(loss), and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Actuate Corporation, and our report dated April 28, 2005, relating tomanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which report appears in this December 31, 2004 amended annualreport on Form 10-K/A of Actuate Corporation. 

 

Our report datedApril 28, 2005, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, expresses our opinion that ActuateCorporation did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 because of the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraphthat states that the Company’s policies and procedures did not require review and approval by the relevant senior accounting personnel at the parent company level of journal entries for material nonrecurring transactions originating at theforeign subsidiary level. The absence of this control resulted in a failure in the Company’s year-end financial statement close process to ensure that original assumptions made in determining the amount of a restructuring charge had not changedas of year-end. As a result of this deficiency, a material error in accounting for the amount recorded for a restructuring charge originating at a foreign subsidiary level occurred. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

April 28, 2005
EXHIBIT
      32





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 annual report of Genmed Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Roy Piceni, Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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 result of operations of the
                Company.




Date:
                April 15, 2008
            By:
            /s/ 
                Roy PiceniRoy
                Piceni, Chief Executive
                Officer




A
      signed
      original of this certification 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.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Kevin G. Champagne, President and Chief Executive Officer of SeacoastFinancial Services Corporation, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to theannual report on Form 10-K of Seacoast Financial Services Corporation.

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.

 

 
| Date:  April 29, 2004 | /s/  Kevin G. Champagne                |   |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                            | Kevin  G. Champagne                    |
|                            | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
§ 244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data. ( a ) Each covered carrier shall file BTS Form 244 “Tarmac Delay Report” with the Office of Airline Information of the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics setting forth the information for each of its covered flights that experienced an excessive tarmac delay at a U.S. airport, including diverted flights and cancelled flights on which the passengers were boarded and then deplaned before the cancellation. The reports are due within 15 days after the end of any month during which the carrier experienced the excessive tarmac delay. The reports shall be made in the form and manner set forth in accounting and reporting directives issued by the Director, Office of Airline Information, and shall contain the following information: ( 1 ) Carrier code.
( 2 ) Flight number.
( 3 ) Departure airport (three letter code).
( 4 ) Arrival airport (three letter code).
( 5 ) Date of flight operation (year/month/day).
( 6 ) Gate departure time (actual) in local time.
( 7 ) Wheels-off time (actual) in local time.
( 8 ) Wheels-on time (actual) in local time.
( 9 ) Gate arrival time (actual) in local time.
( 10 ) Aircraft tail number.
( 11 ) Total ground time away from gate for all gate return/fly return at origin airports including cancelled flights.
( 12 ) Longest time away from gate for gate return or canceled flight.
( 13 ) Three letter code of airport where flight diverted.
( 14 ) Wheels-on time at diverted airport.
( 15 ) Total time away from gate at diverted airport.
( 16 ) Longest time away from gate at diverted airport.
( 17 ) Wheels-off time at diverted airport.
( b ) Covered carriers that experience an excessive tarmac delay at a U.S. airport and are filing a form under this section must also report the length of the excessive tarmac delay to the Office of Airline Information of the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, if the length of the excessive tarmac delay experienced is not otherwise represented by the data points listed in paragraph (a) of this section (*e.g.,* the pilot sets the aircraft parking brake after arriving at the passenger unloading area, but passengers are not provided an opportunity to deplane at that time).
( c ) The same information required by paragraphs (a)(13) through (17) of this section must be provided for each subsequent diverted airport landing.
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2019-0144, 86 FR 23269, May 3, 2021]
#### Craig *v.*City of Birmingham.

Violating Municipal Ordinance.

(Decided May 30, 1916.

71 South. 983.)

Appeal and Error; Assignments of Error; Municipal Corporation.— An appeal from a conviction of violating a municipal ordinance, although quasi criminal in its nature and statutory, is not governed by the provisions of § 6264, Code 1907, and when an appeal is taken errors must be assigned of record, otherwise the judgment will be affirmed for want of assignment of errors.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

H. E. Craig was convicted of violating a municipal ordinance in the city of Birmingham, and he appeals, but assigns no errors on the record. Appellee moves for an affirmance upon that ground.

Affirmed.

*631J. W. Davidson, for appellant. W. A. Jenkins, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for the violation of a municipal ordinance. The appellant assigns no error upon the record.

The prosecution for a violation of a municipal ordinance is statutory and quasi criminal in its nature. Section 6264, Code 1907, obviating the necessity of assigning errors in criminal cases, has no application to quasi criminal appeals, as for the violation of an ordinance of a municipal *corporation.*—Perry *v. State,*1 Ala. App. 253, 55 South. 1035; *Dreyfus v. City of Montgomery,*4 Ala. App. 270, 58 South. 730; *Creel v. City of Jasper,*69 South. 239.

Appellee’s motion to affirm, it follows, is well taken, and the judgment of the court below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 0328 Directorate Identifier: 2012 - NM - 184 - AD

747 - 53A2688 --- 8/21/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### §§ 435.36-435.40 [Reserved]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 452 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide a temporary exemption 

for low-revenue issuers from certain auditor attestation requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2019 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Mr. PERDUE, and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide a 

temporary exemption for low-revenue issuers from certain 

auditor attestation requirements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fostering Innovation 

5 Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 452 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR LOW-REVENUE ISSU2 ERS. 

3 Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 

4 U.S.C. 7262) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(d) TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR LOW-REVENUE

7 ISSUERS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

9 ‘‘(A) the term ‘average annual gross reve10 nues’ means the total gross revenues of an 

11 issuer over its most recently completed 3 fiscal 

12 years divided by 3; 

13 ‘‘(B) the term ‘emerging growth company’ 

14 has the meaning given the term in section 3 of 

15 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

16 U.S.C. 78c); and 

17 ‘‘(C) the term ‘large accelerated filer’ has 

18 the meaning given the term in section 240.12b– 

19 2 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (or 

20 any successor regulation). 

21 ‘‘(2) LOW-REVENUE EXEMPTION.—Subsection 

22 (b) shall not apply with respect to an audit report 

23 prepared for an issuer that— 

24 ‘‘(A) ceased to be an emerging growth 

25 company on the last day of the fiscal year of 

26 the issuer following the 5-year period beginning 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 452 IS

1 on the date of the first sale of common equity 

2 securities of the issuer pursuant to an effective 

3 registration statement under the Securities Act 

4 of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.); 

5 ‘‘(B) had average annual gross revenues of 

6 less than $50,000,000 as of its most recently 

7 completed fiscal year; and 

8 ‘‘(C) is not a large accelerated filer. 

9 ‘‘(3) EXPIRATION OF TEMPORARY EXEMP10 TION.—An issuer ceases to be eligible for the exemp11 tion described under paragraph (1) on the earlier 

12 of— 

13 ‘‘(A) the last day of the fiscal year of the 

14 issuer following the 10-year period beginning on 

15 the date of the first sale of common equity se16 curities of the issuer pursuant to an effective 

17 registration statement under the Securities Act 

18 of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.); 

19 ‘‘(B) the last day of the fiscal year of the 

20 issuer during which the average annual gross 

21 revenues of the issuer exceed $50,000,000; or 

22 ‘‘(C) the date on which the issuer becomes 

23 a large accelerated filer.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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

PEDRO ARENAS-CELAYA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70250

Agency No. A092-239-895

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, AND W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Arenas-Celaya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894

FILED

JUN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70250

(9th Cir. 2003), and de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324

F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arenas-Celaya’s motion to

reopen because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s May 19, 2005,

order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to

reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and ArenasCelaya failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d

at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing

because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due

diligence”). It follows that Arenas-Celaya’s due process claim fails. See Lata v.

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a

petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). 

To the extent Arenas-Celaya challenges the BIA’s October 27, 2003, order

dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for

review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315

F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 
3 08-70250

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
130 STAT. 288 PUBLIC LAW 114–129—FEB. 29, 2016 

Public Law 114–129 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for the conveyance of land of the Illiana Health Care System of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs in Danville, Illinois. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, DANVILLE, ILLINOIS. 

(a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs may convey to the Danville Area Community College of 

Danville, Illinois, all right, title, and interest of the United States 

in and to certain real property, including any improvements 

thereon, consisting of approximately .6 acres known as ‘‘Building 

Number 48’’, which is part of the Illiana Health Care System 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

(b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the conveyance under 

subsection (a), the Danville Area Community College shall convey 

to the United States all right, title, and interest of Danville Area 

Community College in and to certain real property, including any 

improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 1.06 acres with 

a gazebo located approximately 293 feet south of the Danville 

Area Community College Library Building, which is part of the 

Danville Area Community College. 

(c) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the recipient 

accept the conveyed real property in its condition at the time 

of the conveyance. 

(d) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The exact acreage and legal 

description of the parcels of real property conveyed under subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined by surveys satisfactory 

to the Secretary. 

(e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may 

require such additional terms and conditions in connection with 

Determination. 

Danville Area 

Community 

College. 

Feb. 29, 2016 

[H.R. 3262] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
PUBLIC LAW 114–129—FEB. 29, 2016 130 STAT. 289 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3262: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Feb. 9, considered and passed House. 

Feb. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

the conveyances under subsections (a) and (b) as the Secretary 

considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. 

Approved February 29, 2016. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
## NOx Formation Project

**Control Phase**  **John Hausman March 7, 2008** 1

## Possible Solutions  Predictive NOx Equation from all operating data by varying furnace conditions– based on 7 day NOx test.  Install 1 CEM per line and create an equation based on the percentage of NOx emitted from each stack in the furnace.

2  Install 1 CEM per line and create a predictive equation using that and operating data.

## Solution **Selected**  CCI rejected the idea to install any CEMs due to the maintenance and downtime...  This leaves us only one solution to implement, a predictive equation based on operating conditions in the furnace. We will have to create a predictive equation while producing High

3 Compression pellets as well, but we do not have any stack testing planned during a high compression pellet run.

## Control **Plans**  Control plans will be based on future NOx Stack Testing data.  Based on MPCA recommendations, we will do stack testing on an annual basis and check the regression equation to fit that. To ensure the fit meets MPCA requirement, the

4 standard deviation of the residual divided by the mean of the actual concentration of NOx must be no greater than 0.09. This valuewill be used for future stack tests and regression modeling of the NOx emissions.

### Standardization **and Replication Opportunities**   We will be performing NOx stack testing on the other two furnace lines, so we will be trying to determine a viable equation to represent the NOx on those two lines as well.  Aftera model is produced, we will create points on the control room screen (as requested by the MPCA) to allow us

5 to evaluate the NOx emissions.
EXHIBIT 32.2 – 906 Certification








GENMED HOLDING CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the  Amended Annual Report of Genmed Holding Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Erwin R. Bouwens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Randy Hibma


Randy Hibma


Chief Financial Officer





July 23, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Genmed Holding Corp., and will be retained by Genmed Holding Corp. 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. RP00-263-000]

Take notice that on May 1, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets proposed to be effective June 1, 2000. 

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 267

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 268

Third Revised Sheet No. 269

First Revised Sheet No. 269A

Original Sheet No. 269B 

Northern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise the tariff provisions relating to the price to resolve monthly imbalances. Specifically, Northern proposes to replace the Monthly Average Index Price with High, Low and Average Weekly System and Field Index Prices. Northern is proposing a pricing mechanism whereby the imbalance is valued based on an average weekly index price that differs for payable and receivable imbalances.

Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commission.

                    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.                           ( print page 30102)                        20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 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. 00-11620  Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
P.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

145) ll-B-47 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/20081:21:27 PM Sheet 145 of 145 
P.2 

A-90-19 

ll-B-47 

PENDING CONFIDENTLY 

The following information is located in the confident 

files of the Director, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This 

information is confidential pending final determination by the 

Administrator and is not available for public inspection. 

W. Floyd, Radian Corporation, to Process Vents Docket 

A-90-19, December 1990, HON NESHAP: Industry 

Characteristics/Diketene. 21 pages. 

CBI Document Control No. 86/23, PPS-47.