alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 437.61 Landing and impact locations. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76728 , Sept. 19, 2024.
For a nominal or any contingency abort landing of a reusable suborbital rocket, or for any nominal or contingency impact or landing of a component of that rocket, a permittee must use a location that— ( a ) Is big enough to contain an impact, including debris dispersion upon impact; and
( b ) At the time of landing or impact, does not contain any members of the public.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of aQuantive, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-K***”), I, Michael Vernon, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Form 10-QQ 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 

 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: May 14, 2003 

 

/s/    MICHAEL VERNON

                                                                   

Michael Vernon 

Chief Financial Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4698 

To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the payment of 

pay and allowances for certain officers of the Army who are assigned 

to the Corps of Engineers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 10, 1956, to provide for the 

payment of pay and allowances for certain officers of 

the Army who are assigned to the Corps of Engineers. 

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 ‘‘USACE Military Aug5 mentation Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4698 IS

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN 

2 OFFICERS FROM APPROPRIATION FOR IM3 PROVEMENTS. 

4 Section 36 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (70A Stat. 

5 634, chapter 1041), is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘Regular officers of the Corps 

7 of Engineers of the Army, and reserve officers of the 

8 Army who are assigned to the Corps of Engineers,’’ 

9 and inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The personnel described in sub11 section (b)’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(b) PERSONNEL DESCRIBED.—The personnel re14 ferred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

15 ‘‘(1) Regular officers of the Corps of Engineers 

16 of the Army. 

17 ‘‘(2) The following members of the Army who 

18 are assigned to the Corps of Engineers: 

19 ‘‘(A) Reserve officers. 

20 ‘‘(B) Warrant officers (whether regular or 

21 reserve). 

22 ‘‘(C) Enlisted members (whether regular or 

23 reserve).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.38 Final decision of the DOT Decisionmaker.

When a case stands submitted to the DOT decisionmaker for final decision on the merits, he or she will dispose of the issues presented by entering an appropriate order that will include a statement of the reasons for his or her findings and conclusions. Such orders shall be deemed “final orders” within the purview of § 302.14(a), in the manner provided by § 302.18.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                  
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer November 7, 2003



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMSDouglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer November 7, 2003
§ 65.23 Incorporation by reference. Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FAA, Certification and Training Group, 202-267-1100, *ACSPTSinquiries@faa.gov .* For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fr.inspection@nara.gov ,* or go to *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations .* The material may be obtained from the source in the following paragraph of this section. ( a ) Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, 866-835-5322, *www.faa.gov/training_testing .* ( 1 ) FAA-S-8081-10E, Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards, November 2023; IBR approved for § 65.59.
( 2 ) FAA-S-8081-25C, Parachute Rigger Practical Test Standards, November 2023; IBR approved for §§ 65.115, 65.119, and 65.123.
( 3 ) FAA-S-ACS-1, Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant Airman Certification Standards, November 1, 2021; IBR approved for §§ 65.75 and 65.79.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Docket No. FAA-2021-0237; Amdt. No. 65-63, 87 FR 31414, May 24, 2022, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1463; Amdt. No.65-64, 89 FR 22520, Apr. 1, 2024]
exhibit10-1.htm


 

 







Exhibit 10.1




NOVO ENERGIES CORPORATION





 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT









 

The Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2009 (the "Agreement") (by and between NOVO ENERGIES CORPORATION, a Florida corporation located at 750 Cote de Place d'Aimes, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 2X3 (the "Company"), and ANDRE L'HEUREUX, an individual with an address at 750 Cote de Place d'Armes, Montreal Quebec, Canada H2Y 2X8 (the "Executive")
is hereby amended ("Amendment") ss follows:









 

  1.   Employment.

 

1.1   Position. The Company hereby employs the Executives and the Executive hereby accepts employment, as the Chief Technical Office of the Company. Upon execution of this Amendment; the Executive resigns
as the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company.

 

1.2   Duties. The Executive shall serve as the Company^ Chief Technical Officer and shall perform the customary duties and responsibilities implied by such position including, without limitation, being responsible for the
general management of the affairs of the Company^ subject to the power and authority of the Board to overrule actions of officers of the Company, In such capacities the Executive shall report directly to the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board"), the Chairman of the Board and the President and Chief Executive Office of the Company, These positions, duties, and responsibilities can be modified as reasonably required to suit the specific requirements and needs of the Company, provided that the same shaH
be commensurate with the Executive's experience and expertise and shall not result in the Executive having duties and responsibilities substantially less senior and more onerous to the Executive,









 

   3.   Compensation.





 

 3.1   Base Salary. The Company agrees to pay the Executive, and Executive agrees to accept a base cash salary (the "Base Salary"), in accordance with the Company's normal payroll procedures applicable to executives,,
payable at least bi­weekly. The Base Salary shall initially be payable at the rate of $6,500 per month effective November^ 2009. Salary. AD compensation payments to be made to the Executive will be subject to required withholding of federal, state/provincial and local income and employment taxes.









 

AH other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.





 



 



 







 



 

    IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.









NOVO ENERGY CORPORATION





/s/ Antonio Treminio

Name:     Antonio Treminio

Title:       Chairman of Board of Directors









/s/ Andre L’Heureux

                    Andre
L’Heureux    2009-10-21
#### RAWLEIGH CO v FRITZ et

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided Dec. 12, 1928

Miller & Searl, Portsmouth, for Rawleigh Co.

A. R. Johnson, Ironton and W. L. Hostetter, Portsmouth, for Fritz.

MAUCK, J.

If from the conclusions referred to we are to understand that the court found that the contract sued upon was severable, that while the sureties were liable for goods sold after the execution of the contract but were not liable for the indebtedness existing at the time the contract was signed because there was no consideration for holding the sureties for the old indebtedness, we think that the court erred. The contract of surety was expressed in this language:

> “For and in consideration of the sum of one dollar to me in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby expressly confessed and acknowledged, or in consideration of the above named seller extending further credit to the said buyer, we, the undérsigned, do hereby jointly and severally guarantee unto the said The W. T. Rawleigh Company, the above named seller, unconditionally, the payment in full of the balance due or owing said seller on account as shown by its books at the date of the acceptance of this contract of guaranty by seller, and the full and complete payment of all monies due or owing, or that may become due or owing said seller, and all indebtedness incurred by the buyer under the terms of the above and foregoing instrument by the buyer named as such therein”, etc.

The only interpretation of which this language is capable is that if the company extended to Brown credit for goods thereafter ordered by him the sureties bound themselves in consideration of that fact both to the payment of future purchases ,and to the payment of past due indebtedness. As much as we abhor the involved language in which this oppressive purpose is concealed it seems to us nevertheless that the defendants were persuaded to guarantee both the old and new indebtedness of Brown for the one and single consideration that the company should continue to furnish goods that Brown might thereafter order. It is to the credit of the *453commercial world, that few contracts so odious in purpose and so unjust in resuts are found in the courts. All to which our attention has been called have been cases in which the manufacturers of patent medicines and like nostrums are dealing with peddlers. The legal principle is, however, well settled that courts can not in actions at law inquire into the adequacy of the consideration upon which contracts ,are predicated, and tho it is wholly unfair it is possible that these sureties have bound themselves to pay the whole indebtedness of Brown in consideration of future credits agreed to be extended to him. The judgment in this case is reversed and the case remanded for new trial.

Middleton, J, concurs. Thomas, PJ, not sitting.
#### WEAVER v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1513,

Decided Dec 10, 1928

Crabbe, Johnson, Crabbe & Williams, London, and D F Anderson, Youngstown, for Weaver.

Oscar A Hunsicker, Pros Atty, Akron, for State. .

*120LLOYD, J

From an examination of the record we are of the opinon that the first two specifications of error are not well taken.

The chief error of which plaintiff in error complains is that the trial judge permitted the state to introduce in evidence the complaint filed in the action commenced by Weaver m Los Angeles County, California, it being claimed that Sec. 11359 of the General Code prohibits the use as evidence of this pleading for any purpose. This statute creates a rule of evidence, and in our judgment is applicable to pleadings filed in actions in other jurisdictions, and offered in evidence on the trial of an action in a court in this state; although we have seriously considered the question as to whether this section of the Code refers to and includes pleadings filed in an action in a state other than Ohio. A general exception was taken to the admission in evidence of this complaint and the court was not requested to in any way restrict or to limit the purposes for which it was offered, and therefore if it was admissable for any purpose, the court did not commit prejudicial error, although we are of the opinion that the trial judge might very properly have advised the jury of the purposes for which it was received in evidence, and counsel might properly have requested him so to do. If this had been done and the trial judge had refused to comply therewith, we believe that prejudicial error would have resulted. This complaint could not be received as evidence to prove the allegations of the complaint, nor to disprove the truth of the testimony given by plaintiff in error in his deposition taken in the case pending in Summit County. What the facts were as to the condition of his eyes, whether as stated by him in this complaint or as testified to by him in the deposition taken in Akron, had to be proven by other evidence, and depositions of wittnesses residing in California were taken to show the condition of his eyes following the accident oceuring in that state. In our judgment the complaint was admissible to show what the plaintiff in error claimed the facts were as to the condition af his eyes following the accident in Los Angeles, as tending to show, if the facts as so claimed by him were proven by competent evidence, his knowledge thereof at the time of giving his testimony in the deposition in the Akron case upon which the indictment was founded, and his intent in so testifying.

> Lappley vs. Wisconsin, 170 Wis., 356, 359; 7 A. L. R., 1279, 1282;

'Finding none of the alleged errors prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, the judgement is affirmed.

Richards and Williams, JJ, concur.
§ 67.4 Application. An applicant for first-, second- and third-class medical certification must: ( a ) Apply on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator;
( b ) Be examined by an aviation medical examiner designated in accordance with part 183 of this chapter. An applicant may obtain a list of aviation medical examiners from the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine homepage on the FAA Web site, from any FAA Regional Flight Surgeon, or by contacting the Manager of the Aerospace Medical Education Division, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125.
( c ) Show proof of age and identity by presenting a government-issued photo identification (such as a valid U.S. driver's license, identification card issued by a driver's license authority, military identification, or passport). If an applicant does not have government-issued identification, he or she may use non-photo, government-issued identification (such as a birth certificate or voter registration card) in conjunction with photo identification (such as a work identification card or a student identification card).
[Doc. No. FAA-2007-27812, 73 FR 43065, July 24, 2008, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 67-22, 87 FR 75845, Dec. 9, 2022]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark J. Cresswell, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, asadopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| February 17,  2004          |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |
| /s/ Mark J.  Cresswell      |   |
|                        |
| Mark J.  Cresswell          |
|                        |
| principal executive officer |

 

1

----
April 3, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DRAKE INTERIORS, L.L .C. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00349

- CV V.

ANDREA MARIE THOMAS AND ROBERT WARREN THOMAS , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Andrea Marie
Thomas , signed March 20, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find er ror in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedings in accordance with the court ’ s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, Andrea Mar ie Thomas.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Capacity Factor % 85

**Trona and Urea** Sulfur lb/MMBtu 0.80 Unit Firing Rate MMBtu/hr 5,501 Uncontrolled Nox lb/MMBtu 0.300 Plant Average Nox inlet Nox Removal Efficiency % 80.000 Nox emission rate lb/mmbtu 0.060 Ratio Urea to Nox lb Urea/ lb Nox 0.685 Urea Usage ton/hr 0.384 ton/year 3,367 Urea Cost $/ton 650 Cost based on 2016 dollars Annual Urea Cost $/year 2,188,517

**Variable O&M Costs** Urea Costs $/year 2,188,517 

### Total Variable O&M **$/year $2,188,517** 

**Fixed O&M Costs** Operating Labor Cost $/year 525,600 1051201 person per shift for 5 shifts Maintenance Labor $/year 525,600 1051201 person per shift for 5 shifts Maintenance Material $/year 500,000 

### Total Fixed O&M **$/year 1,551,200** 

**Removal Cost** NOx Removal Variable Costs $/ton 650.00 Fixed Costs $/MWH 0.395

**Additional Capital Costs** Catalyst Replacement $/year 1,500,000 average annual cost (based on 50% of Rockport catalyst replacement cost) 

### Flint Creek Plant - SCR - OEM Cost Information.

Change Nox Efficiency (90% max for SCR) to get desired Nox emission rate

guess that was based on an O&M study for Arsenal Hill Plant
§ 29.955 Fuel flow. ( a ) *General.* The fuel system for each engine must provide the engine with at least 100 percent of the fuel required under all operating and maneuvering conditions to be approved for the rotorcraft, including, as applicable, the fuel required to operate the engines under the test conditions required by § 29.927. Unless equivalent methods are used, compliance must be shown by test during which the following provisions are met, except that combinations of conditions which are shown to be improbable need not be considered. ( 1 ) The fuel pressure, corrected for accelerations (load factors), must be within the limits specified by the engine type certificate data sheet.
( 2 ) The fuel level in the tank may not exceed that established as the unusable fuel supply for that tank under § 29.959, plus that necessary to conduct the test.
( 3 ) The fuel head between the tank and the engine must be critical with respect to rotorcraft flight attitudes.
( 4 ) The fuel flow transmitter, if installed, and the critical fuel pump (for pump-fed systems) must be installed to produce (by actual or simulated failure) the critical restriction to fuel flow to be expected from component failure.
( 5 ) Critical values of engine rotational speed, electrical power, or other sources of fuel pump motive power must be applied.
( 6 ) Critical values of fuel properties which adversely affect fuel flow are applied during demonstrations of fuel flow capability.
( 7 ) The fuel filter required by § 29.997 is blocked to the degree necessary to simulate the accumulation of fuel contamination required to activate the indicator required by § 29.1305(a)(18).
( b ) *Fuel transfer system.* If normal operation of the fuel system requires fuel to be transferred to another tank, the transfer must occur automatically via a system which has been shown to maintain the fuel level in the receiving tank within acceptable limits during flight or surface operation of the rotorcraft.
( c ) *Multiple fuel tanks.* If an engine can be supplied with fuel from more than one tank, the fuel system, in addition to having appropriate manual switching capability, must be designed to prevent interruption of fuel flow to that engine, without attention by the flightcrew, when any tank supplying fuel to that engine is depleted of usable fuel during normal operation and any other tank that normally supplies fuel to that engine alone contains usable fuel.
[Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34217, Sept. 2, 1988, as amended by Amdt. 29-59, 88 FR 8739, Feb. 10, 2023]
msccex3202.htm


    EXHIBIT
32.02

    


    


    CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter
Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter
Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     

    
      	
              (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
      Partnership.

            


    

     

    


     

    


     

    


     

    


    


    


    
      	 
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
      Christian Angstadt

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Name:

            	
              Christian
      Angstadt

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Title:

            	
              Chief
      Financial Officer of

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              Demeter
      Management LLC,

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              general
      partner of the registrant

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Date:

            	
              November
      12, 2009