alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Skibo Financial Corp.(the  "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Walter
G. Kelly,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Carol A. Gilbert,  Chief
Financial and Operating Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary,  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) 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.




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                  <C>

/s/ Walter G. Kelly                          /s/ Carol A. Gilbert
-------------------------------------        --------------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer        Chief Financial and Operating Officer,
(Principal Executive Officer)                Treasurer and Secretary
                                             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date: January 30, 2003                       Date: January 30, 2003

</TABLE>
#### POLLARD v ALPERT

Case No. NC-91-5727-RH

County Court, Palm Beach County

May 28, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Mary L. Pollard, pro se.

Chivón Alpert, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERT S. SCHWARTZ, County Judge.

THIS MATTER WAS BEFORE THE COURT, pursuant to the Plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing as to the Court’s refusal to award monetary damages, and the Court having considered matters contained in the motion, hereby denies the motion.

The Plaintiff, Landlord, filed a one count Complaint for possession of leased residential property based upon the non-payment of rent by the Defendant, Tenant. At trial the Plaintiff prevailed and was awarded possession. However, the Court refused to award damages as there was *128no demand for damages in her Complaint. The Complaint was for possession only.

The Plaintiff cites Chapter 83.625 as authority for the proposition that damages should be awarded where the Court finds that the rent is due and awards possession. However, the Plaintiff in her recitation of the above section, fails to take account of the verbiage contained therein, that:

> ... no money judgment may be entered except in compliance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. . . The Court interprets this section to require, inter alia, that the Complaint contain some demand for money damages. Rule 1.110(b)(3) states that a person’s Complaint must contain, “a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.”

The Plaintiff, in support of her motion, also cites the case of *Stein v Hubbs,*439 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). However, the *Stein*case is distinguishable from the case at bar in that the Complaint therein was a two count Complaint, one for possession and the other for monetary damages.

The most basic requirement of procedural due process mandates that a Defendant be afforded notice and a hearing. The Defendant, in the case at bar, was not put on notice that money damages were being sought, since no mention thereof was made in the Complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 28th day of May, 1991.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Lawrence  A.  Consalvi,  Chief  Executive  Officer of Gateway  International
Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004,  fully complies with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C.  78m or 78o(d))  and that  information  contained  in this  Quarterly
Report on Form  10-QSB  for the  fiscal  quarter  ended  June 30,  2004,  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.


By: /s/ Lawrence A. Consalvi
    -----------------------------
    Name:  Lawrence A. Consalvi
    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
    Date:  October 7, 2005
exv10w29






Exhibit 10.29




Consulting Arrangement with Paul J. Klaassen




     As previously disclosed, in November 2008, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (the “Company”) entered
into an oral consulting arrangement with Paul J. Klaassen, the Company’s non-executive Chair of the
Board of Directors. Under the consulting arrangement, the Company agreed to pay Mr. Klaassen a fee
of $25,000 per month for consulting with the Company and Mark S. Ordan, the Company’s new chief
executive officer, on senior living matters. This was in addition to any benefits Mr. Klaassen was
entitled to under his prior employment agreement. Fees totaling $87,500 were paid to Mr. Klaassen
for three and a half months commencing in November 2008.
#### Henning *vs.*Van Tyne & M’Gowan.

interest is not taxable with costs, where a plaintiff is delayed by a case made by the defendant, except in actions on contract.

Interest on verdict. The plaintiff obtained a verdict in an action of *trover,*but was *delayed*in entering judgment by a *case*made by the defendants for a new trial. In the taxation of costs, *interest*was allowed by the taxing officer from the time of the verdict; and on this ground a motion was made for relaxation.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

The motion must be granted. *Interest*is taxable in such cases only where the.action is founded on contract. 1 Johns. Cas. 27. 1 Johns. R, 343. See also 2 R. S. 364, § 9.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Nick Ferme, Appellant.

(Argued November 19, 1936;

decided December 4, 1936.)

*Edgar T. Beamish, William Wills*and *Raymond F. Klaess*for appellant.

*Martin W. Littleton, Jr., District Attorney (Philip Huntington*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Gh. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 91.21 Portable electronic devices. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft: ( 1 ) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
( 2 ) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to— ( 1 ) Portable voice recorders;
( 2 ) Hearing aids;
( 3 ) Heart pacemakers;
( 4 ) Electric shavers; or
( 5 ) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
( c ) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
§ 73.13 Restrictions. No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area between the designated altitudes and during the time of designation, unless he has the advance permission of ( a ) The using agency described in § 73.15; or
( b ) The controlling agency described in § 73.17.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.33 Tentative decision of the DOT decisionmaker. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever the administrative law judge certifies the record in a proceeding directly to the DOT decisionmaker without issuing an initial or recommended decision in the matter, the DOT decisionmaker shall, after consideration of any briefs submitted by the parties, prepare a tentative decision and serve it upon the parties. Every tentative decision of the DOT decisionmaker shall state the names of the persons who are to receive copies of it, the time within which exceptions to such decision and briefs, if any, in support of or in opposition to the exceptions may be filed, and the date when such decision will become final in the absence of exceptions thereto. If no exceptions are filed to the tentative decision of the DOT decisionmaker within the period fixed, it shall become final at the expiration of such period unless the DOT decisionmaker orders otherwise.
( b ) The DOT decisionmaker may, in his or her discretion, omit a tentative decision in proceedings under subpart B. Final decisions of the DOT decisionmaker are subject to review as provided in § 302.18.
§ 404.15 Alternative Time Frames. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, an applicant, a licensee, a permittee, or a safety element approval holder must meet the time frames set forth in this chapter.
( b ) *Request to change a time frame.* An applicant, a licensee, a permittee, or a safety element approval holder may file a written request to the FAA to propose an alternative time frame to any of the time frames included in the chapter III sections listed in Appendix A to part 404. The request must be— ( 1 ) Emailed to *ASTApplications@faa.gov* in accordance with § 413.7; or
( 2 ) Mailed to the Federal Aviation Administration, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Room 331, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Attention: Alternative Time Frame Request.
( c ) *Administrator review.* The Administrator will review and make a decision or grant a request for an alternative time frame as follows: ( 1 ) The FAA will conduct its review on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the complexity of the request, the timeliness of the request, and whether the requested alternative allows sufficient time for the FAA to conduct its review and make the requisite public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy findings;
( 2 ) The FAA will provide its decision in writing; and
( 3 ) The FAA may grant the request, deny the request, or grant an alternative time frame that differs from what was requested.
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 404-7, 85 FR 79710, Dec. 10, 2020]
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 217 SSM 19

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

James M. Roshia, Jr.

 Appellant.

Submitted by Albert F. Lawrence, for appellant.

Submitted by Alexander Lesyk, Esq., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. 

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury, a sexual assault evidence

kit was taken from the victim, and County Court's order directing

defendant to provide a DNA sample was authorized by statute (CPL 

240.40[2][b][v]). Accordingly, County Court did not err in

- 1 -
- 2 - SSM 19

granting the People's application directing defendant to provide

a buccal swab for testing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

Decided October 20, 2016

- 2 -
§ 415.57 Payload review. ( a ) *Timing.* A payload review may be conducted as part of a license application review or may be requested by a payload owner or operator in advance of or apart from a license application.
( b ) *Interagency consultation.* The FAA consults with other agencies to determine whether launch of a proposed payload or payload class would present any issues affecting public health and safety, safety of property, U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United States. ( 1 ) The FAA consults with the Department of Defense to determine whether launch of a proposed payload or payload class would present any issues affecting U.S. national security.
( 2 ) The FAA consults with the Department of State to determine whether launch of a proposed payload or payload class would present any issues affecting U.S. foreign policy interests or international obligations.
( 3 ) The FAA consults with other federal agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, authorized to address issues identified under paragraph (b) of this section associated with an applicant's launch proposal.
( c ) The FAA advises a person requesting a payload determination, in writing, of any issue raised during a payload review that would impede issuance of a license to launch that payload or payload class. The person requesting payload review may respond, in writing, or revise its application.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael E. Roach, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of CGI Group Inc.;

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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The issuers other certifying officer(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 issuer 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 issuer, 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) Designed such internal control over financial
reporting, or caused such internal control 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 generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and 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

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

5. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuer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 issuer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 the issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 22, 2011



/s/ Michael E. RoachMichael E. RoachPresident andChief Executive Officer
§ 65.49 General operating rules. ( a ) Except for a person employed by the FAA or employed by, or on active duty with, the Department of the Air Force, Army, or Navy, or the Coast Guard, no person may act as an air traffic control tower operator under a certificate issued to him or her under this part unless he or she has in his or her personal possession an appropriate current medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter.
( b ) Each person holding an air traffic control tower operator certificate shall keep it readily available when performing duties in an air traffic control tower, and shall present that certificate or his medical certificate or both for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
( c ) A certificated air traffic control tower operator who does not hold a facility rating for a particular control tower may not act at any operating position at the control tower concerned unless there is maintained at that control tower, readily available to persons named in paragraph (b) of this section, a current record of the operating positions at which he has qualified.
( d ) An air traffic control tower operator may not perform duties under his certificate during any period of known physical deficiency that would make him unable to meet the physical requirements for his current medical certificate. However, if the deficiency is temporary, he may perform duties that are not affected by it whenever another certificated and qualified operator is present and on duty.
( e ) A certificated air traffic control tower operator may not control air traffic with equipment that the Administrator has found to be inadequate.
( f ) The holder of an air traffic control tower operator certificate, or an applicant for one, shall, upon the reasonable request of the Administrator, cooperate fully in any test that is made of him.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-31, 52 FR 17519, May 8, 1987]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11980]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00-046]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Access, LLC, of Norfolk, VA, has 
applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions described 
and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 5,377,100, entitled ``A Method of 
Encouraging Attention by Correlating Video Game Difficulty With 
Attention Level,'' and NASA Case No. LAR 15817-1, entitled ``A Method 
of Encouraging Physiological Self-Regulation Through Modulation of an 
Operator's Control Input to a Video Game or Training Simulator,'' both 
of which are assigned to the United States of America as represented by 
the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent 
to Langley Research Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by July 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen M. Galus, Patent Attorney, 
Langley Research Center, Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; 
telephone 757-864-3227; facsimile 757-864-9190.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-11980 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Page 1 of 2

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN MORAN and NORA MORAN,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court, issued on September 23, 2002,

should be amended as follows.

The last paragraph of Chief Judge Boudin's concurring opinion,

beginning on page 32 and continuing to page 33, should be replaced

with the following two paragraphs:

In the district court, Nora moved for a judgment of

acquittal based on insufficient evidence; thereafter she argued to

the district court that this filing should in the alternative be

treated as a motion for a new trial on the same ground. The

government takes the position that the alternative request was

untimely and did not constitute a proper motion for a new trial.

The district court apparently did not rule one way or the other
Page 2 of 2

because the alternative request was mooted by the directed judgment

of acquittal. On remand, the new trial request and the

government's objections remain to be considered.

The district court, already disposed to grant an

acquittal outright, may well be inclined to grant a new trial on

weight-of-the-evidence grounds, given the collapse of the

government's primary voting theory and the thin factual support for

the fraudulent non-disclosure claim against Nora. See, e.g.,

United States v. Montilla-Rivera, 115 F.3d 1060, 1067 (1st Cir.

1997). This outcome might well be justified, assuming that Nora's

arguments for the timeliness of the new trial motion can overcome

the government's asserted objections.
# RELEASE NOTES FIRMWARE VERSION 1.1.2.0

# MōVI CONTROLLER FIRMWARE VERSION 1.1.2.0

**M ō**  **VI COMPATIBILITY** MōVI Controller Firmware v1.1.2.0 is compatible with all MōVI stabilizers (M5, M10, M15) and the following MōVI Firmware versions: v3.08 and up. MōVI Controller Firmware v1.1.2.0 recovers the ability to start the Autotune function from the MōVI Controller with MōVI Firmware version v4.01 and up. 

### RECORD STAR/STOP Record Start/Stop triggering is available through the Redrock Micro microRemote and Hocus Products Axis 1 follow focus systems using the MōVI Controller’s Record Start/Stop button. 

### M **ō VI SETTINGS**  Additional MōVI settings are available in the MōVI Config menu:

• Dual Operator Settings: Pan/Tilt Smoothing,

Pan/Tilt Window, Pan/Tilt Expo, Remote Rate Scale.

• Expert Settings: Pan/Tilt/Roll Hold Strengh. 

### TRANSMITTER SETTINGS Additional transmitter settings are available in the Tx Config menu:

• More remapping options for Pan/Tilt/Roll/

Focus/Iris/Zoom.

• External analog inputs (GPIO1, GPIO2, GPIO3)

can be mapped to any axis. 

### FUNCTIONALITY Roll Trim can be zeroed by pressing both Roll Trim buttons simultaneously. 

### OTHER FIXES

• More digits for Majestic and Dual Operator

settings to match full MōVI ranges.

• Trimmed leading zeros for better

number readability.

• Fixed spelling mistake in menu descriptions.

MōVI is a trademark registered in the U.S. Pat. & Tm. Office. FREEFLY, the Wing Logo and Majestic Mode are trademarks of Freefly Systems Inc. 03-15