alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Lawrence P. Castellani, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advance Stores Company, Incorporated for the year ended December 28, 2002 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of AdvanceStores Company, Incorporated.

Date:  March 27, 2003

|   | By:    |  /s/    LAWRENCE P. CASTELLANI         |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                         |
|   | Name:  | **Lawrence P. Castellani**                                                                              |
|   | Title: | **Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer**                                      |
|   |   |                                                                                                    |

I, Jimmie L. Wade, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advance Stores Company, Incorporated for the year ended December 28, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Advance Stores Company, Incorporated.

Date:  March 27, 2003

|   | By:    |  /s/    JIMMIE L. WADE |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                 |
|   | Name:  | **Jimmie L. Wade**                              |
|   | Title: | **President and Chief Financial Officer**       |
BOk Mortgage

P.O. Box 35688
7060 South Yale
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74153

 Report of Management on Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth
             in the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
                                    Bankers

We, as members of  management  of the Mortgage  Banking  Division of the Bank of
Oklahoma  (the  "Division"),  are  responsible  for  complying  with the minimum
servicing  standards  as  set  forth  in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP").  We
are also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control
over  compliance  with these  standards.  We have performed an evaluation of the
Division's  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards as set forth in the
USAP as of  December  31,  1998  and for the  year  then  ended.  Based  on this
evaluation, we assert that during the year ended December 31, 1998, the Division
complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP.

As of and for the same period,  the  Division had in effect a fidelity  bond and
errors and omissions policy in the amount of $30,000,000.

March 23, 1999

David L. Laughlin
President

James S. Marshall, Jr.
Senior Vice President & CFO
#### § 1471.875 May I ask the debarring official to reconsider a decision to debar me?

Yes, as a debarred person you may ask the debarring official to reconsider the debarment decision or to reduce the time period or scope of the debarment. However, you must put your request in writing and support it with documentation.
#### ROSENSTEIN v DAVIS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9930.

Decided May 6, 1929

Max A Samolar, Cleveland, for Rosenstein.

T A Ryan, Cleveland, for Davis.

PER CURIAM

The trial court apparently based its conclusion upon the fact that although the note matured Sep. 5, 1925, no suit was entered upon this note until early in 1928. The inference which the court drew from that circumstance is that Rosenstein knew of the agreement between Richberger and Davis and that he took the note subject to whatever defense D,avis had against Richberger, the original payee.

While it is true that the length of time which elapsed between the maturity of the note and the date when the action was started is a circumstance which can be considered as bearing upon the question of notice of inflrmaties, it is not in our opinion sufficient by itself to establish that inference.

We hold that the judgment of the Municipal court is manifestly against the weight of the evidence and the judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Vickery, PJ, Levine and Sullivan, JJ, concur.
#### STATE ex CERMAK v BARRY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9854.

Decided April 15, 1929

Messrs: Orgill, Masehke & Wickham, Cleveland, for State ex.

Carl Shuler, Esq., Cleveland, for Barry.

EPITOMIZED OPINION

Where the conviction of the captain of a city fire department was reversed in the Federal Court because the evidence upon which he was convicted was procured by entrapment, there being no question otherwise as to his guilt, he is not, on mandamus, entitled to reinstatement in the fire department as against a rule disqualifying a member because of “conduct unbecoming a gentleman.”

Opinion by

VICKERY, P. J.

SULLIVAN, J. concurs.

LEVINE, J. dissents.
Exhibit 24.10


                       EXCERPT OF THE KEYSPAN CORPORATION
                           BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
                                FEBRUARY 22, 2006



RESOLVED,  that the Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31,  2005,  in a form
substantially  similar to that which has been  reviewed by the  Directors of the
Corporation, is hereby approved; and, be it further

RESOLVED,  that the Proper  Officers of the  Corporation be, and hereby are, and
each of them with the full authority without the others hereby is authorized and
empowered,  in the  name  and on  behalf  of the  Corporation,  to  execute  the
Corporation's  Form  10-K  for the  year  ended  December  31,  2005,  in a form
substantially  similar to the form approved by the Directors of the Corporation,
with  such  changes  as  such  Proper  Officers,  with  the  concurrence  of the
Disclosure Committee,  deem necessary or desirable, the execution by such Proper
Officers to be conclusive evidence that they or he/she deemed such changes to be
necessary or  desirable,  and to execute any  amendments  to such Form 10-K,  to
procure all  necessary  signatures  thereon,  and to file such Form 10-K and any
amendments when so executed  (together with appropriate  exhibits  thereto) with
the Securities and Exchange Commission; and, be it further

RESOLVED,  that the Proper  Officers  of the  Corporation  be,  and hereby  are,
authorized and empowered in the name and on behalf of the Corporation to execute
and deliver any and all such documents, certificates,  instruments,  agreements,
or regulatory filing,  including any amendments,  modifications,  or supplements
thereto,  and to  take  all  such  further  action  as any  such  officer  deems
necessary,  proper, convenient, or desirable in order to carry out the foregoing
resolutions  and to effectuate the purposes and intents  thereof,  the taking of
any such  action  to be  conclusive  evidence  of the  approval  thereof  by the
Directors of the Corporation; and, be it further

RESOLVED,  that all actions  previously  taken and all  documents,  instruments,
certificates and the like previously executed by the Directors,  Proper Officers
or other  authorized  persons of the  Corporation in connection with the matters
referred  to in the  foregoing  resolutions  be hereby  approved,  ratified  and
confirmed in all respects; and, be it further





<PAGE>





RESOLVED,  that each of the  Chairman  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  the Chief
Operating Officer, any President,  any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice
President or any Vice President of the Corporation  shall be considered a Proper
Officer  of  the   Corporation  for  the  purposes  of  each  of  the  foregoing
resolutions.
















                                        2
FAA-2011-0573

From Delta Airlines:

Hi Sanjay,

Appreciate the clarification about 'new' parts.

Hope all is well out in SEA.

Thank you,

Greg

Greg Blake

Manager - A319/A320 Fleet Engineering

Delta Air Lines

ph) 612-266-7503 ** note new number

fax) 612-970-7339

greg.blake@delta.com 

-----Original Message-----

From: Sanjay.Ralhan@faa.gov [mailto:Sanjay.Ralhan@faa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:00 PM

To: Rosamilia, Kirsten

Cc: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov; Ciasullo, Andrea; Delta, 

ChiefEngineer; Hill, Douglas R; Engineering Standards; Blake, Greg E; 

Ead, Souhail J; Keith.A.Frable@faa.gov; Sam.Varajon@faa.gov; 

Thomas.Stafford@faa.gov

Subject: Re: Delta Airbus AMOC Request Letter 11-124

Hello Kirsten,

I have done a quick review of your request. The issue you addressed has 

been brought to my notice earlier by another operator as well so I will 

be posting this comment with my disposition on the FDMS upon closure of 

comment period of this IAR. Basically I agree that my intent of word 

"new"

includes serviceable units.

I don't think an AMOC will be necessary however, if flight standards 

require it then it can be done.

How urgent is your requirement ? I will be out of office starting 

tomorrow returning on August 15, 2011.

Sanjay Ralhan

Program Manager - International Branch

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Services

Federal Aviation Administration

Phone: 425-227-1405

E-mail: Sanjay.Ralhan@faa.gov
 

 From: "Rosamilia, Kirsten" <Kirsten.Rosamilia@delta.com> 

 

 

 To: Keith A Frable/ASO/FAA@FAA, Sam Varajon/AGL/FAA@FAA, 

Sanjay Ralhan/ANM/FAA@FAA, 

 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS/ANM/FAA@FAA 

 

 Cc: "Delta, ChiefEngineer" <ChiefEngineer.Delta@delta.com>, 

"Ciasullo, Andrea" 

 <Andrea.Ciasullo@delta.com>, Engineering Standards 

<engstandards@delta.com>, "Ead, Souhail J" 

 <jim.ead@delta.com>, "Blake, Greg E" 

<greg.blake@delta.com>, "Hill, Douglas R" 

 <douglas.hill@delta.com> 

 

 Date: 07/28/2011 09:49 AM 

 

 Subject: Delta Airbus AMOC Request Letter 11-124 

 

Keith,

AMoC request 11-124 and attachments are provided for your review.

Following your review please forward your comments to Sanjay Ralhan at 

the Seattle ACO. Additionally, hard copies are in the mail. Thank you 

in advance for your attention to this request. Should you have any 

questions or require additional information, please contact Jim Ead, 

Sr. Principal Engineer - Delta Air Lines; telephone (612) 266-7523, 

email jim.ead@delta.com.

Your expeditious review is greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Kirsten

Kirsten Rosamilia

Delta Air Lines, Inc., D574

Program Mgr - AD/Regulatory Programs

Phone:404-714-1161

Fax:404-773-5465

kirsten.rosamilia@delta.com
#### § 375.60 Penalties.

The operation of a foreign aircraft within the United States or over adjacent territorial waters in violation of the provisions of this part constitutes a violation of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII and of this chapter, and may, in addition, constitute a violation of the rules of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such operation makes the person or persons responsible for the violation or violations subject to a civil penalty as provided in 49 U.S.C. 46301, and to the alteration, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of any permit issued under this part and of any U.S. certificate involved as provided in 49 U.S.C. 44709. Engaging in air transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII by a foreign aircraft without a foreign air carrier permit issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41301 or an exemption, or in violation of the terms of such authority constitutes not only a violation of this part but of Title 49, subtitle VII, as well, which entails a criminal penalty as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 46316.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Donald L. Paliwoda, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 of Davel Communications, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

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

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures 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

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

                                             /s/ DONALD L. PALIWODA
                                            ------------------------------
                                             Donald L. Paliwoda
                                             Chief Financial Officer

                                       27
#### § 1405.3 Definition.

Part-time career employment means regularly scheduled work of from 16 to 32 hours per week performed by employees in competitive or excepted appointments in tenure groups I or II.
[No. 27892-8-II.

Division Two.

November 22, 2002.]

#### Diana L. Rollins, *Appellant,*v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-2-13762-7, Katherine M. Stolz, J., entered October 1, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Houghton, J.
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0493 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0493

**98/493/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by the Federal Republic of Germany (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/2) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 223 , 11/08/1998 P. 0008 - 0008 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by the Federal Republic of Germany (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/2) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/493/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 8(1) thereof,

Whereas the Federal Republic of Germany forwarded to the Commission, in a document dated 8 January 1998, a plan specifying the national measures to be implemented during 1998 for the detection of certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products; whereas that plan was amended by a document dated 23 April 1998, in accordance with the Commission's request, bringing it into line with the requirements of Directive 96/23/EC;

Whereas examination of this plan has shown that it complies with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The monitoring plan for the detection of the residues and substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC in live animals and animal products presented by the Federal Republic of Germany is hereby approved.

Article 2

The Federal Republic of Germany shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000080 01-APR-2013 10:42 AM SCPW-13-0000080 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. NOLAN ESPINDA, Warden of Halawa Correctional Facility; KEONE MORREIRA, Case Manager of Module 3 at Halawa, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s motion for reconsideration of the March 14, 2013 order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, which was electronically filed by the appellate clerk on March 22, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 1, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack
#### MILLER v AUBLE

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No 488.

Decided April 11, 1929

John K Nece, Elyria, for Miller.

Robert L Walden, Wellington, for Auble.

WASHBURN, J.

If it is not .alleged in the petition that the contract was or was not in writing, and a general denial is filed, the plaintiff, upon trial, is required to sustain the issue by competent evidence, and the statute is available to the defendant by objection at the trial to oral evidence to prove the contract.

Birchell v. Neaster, 36 OS. 331.

In this case the petition expressly alleges that the contract sued upon was not in writing, and of course it was unnecessary for the defendant to plead the statute; and having filed a general denial, he did not waive the defense of the statute by not interposing the same before the trial of the case.

The petition does not allege facts constituting a partnership, and therefore the case of Furth v. Farkasch, 26 O. App. 258, is not applicable.

The transaction described in the petition in the case at bar is more like the one passed upon in Cohen v. Spitz Co., 28 O. L. R. 379. It is true that in that case the contract was in reference to a specific piece of property, while in the case at bar no specific property is referred to in the agreement; that difference we do not regard as of controlling importance.

Plaintiff’s action is riot one to recover for services in furnishing prospective purchasers, as was the case in McHugh v. Marshall, 164 NE. 778, where there was no claim made that the plaintiff was employed to or that she did assist in making sales of real estate.

It is apparent that he was to be paid a commission upon sales of real estate which he assisted in making, and that the contract *286was within the terms of the statute to pay “a commission for or upon the sale of an interest in real estate,” unless said statute should be construed as applying only to contracts between an owner of real estate and a broker or agent who agrees to render services for such owner in the sale of his real estate.

It may be, in view of the well-known evils connected with such transactions, that it was the intention of the legislature to limit the operation of the law to such contracts, but if so, the legislature could easily have employed language to express such intention, as was done by the legislature of the state of Nebraska, and by the legislatures of several other states. The legislature of Ohio failed to so limit the operation of the statute, and it would be judicial legislation for us to do so.

Where a statute is plain and unambiguous in its terms, it is the duty of courts to enforce rather than construe the same.

In respect to this matter, the statute of the state of Michigan is the same as our GC. Sec. 8621, and the Supreme Court of Michigan has determined that said statute is not limited in its operation to contracts between ,an owner and a broker, but applies to a transaction very similar to the one involved in the case at bar. (Smith v. Starke, 162 N. W. 998.)

Judgment affirmed.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
§ 77.11 Supplemental notice requirements. ( a ) You must file supplemental notice with the FAA when: ( 1 ) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet in height AGL at its site; or
( 2 ) Requested by the FAA.
( b ) You must file supplemental notice on a prescribed FAA form to be received within the time limits specified in the FAA determination. If no time limit has been specified, you must submit supplemental notice of construction to the FAA within 5 days after the structure reaches its greatest height.
( c ) If you abandon a construction or alteration proposal that requires supplemental notice, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the project is abandoned.
( d ) If the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed.