alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, R. Ray Bell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Marine Petroleum Trust; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s Trustee and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s Trustee and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to the extent I considerreasonable on information provided to me by various working interest owners.   Date: September 27, 2005 /s/ R. RAY BELL           R. Ray Bell        Principal Accounting Officer
-23-
Editorial Note on Part 6
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 6 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 6.18 Consent findings and order. ( a ) At any time prior to the receipt of evidence or, at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, prior to the issuance of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, the parties may enter into consent findings and an order disposing of the processings in whole or in part.
( b ) Any agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of a proceeding in whole or in part shall also provide: ( 1 ) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
( 2 ) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement;
( 3 ) A waiver of any further procedural steps before the Administrative Law Judge and Administrative Review Board regarding those matters which are the subject of the agreement; and
( 4 ) A waiver of any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement.
( c ) Within 30 days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the Administrative Law Judge shall, if satisfied with its form and substance, accept such agreement by issuing a decision based upon the agreed findings and order. If such agreement disposes of only a part of the disputed matter, a hearing shall be conducted on the matters remaining in dispute.
# Sheet1

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
#### § 776.24 Travel in connection with construction projects.

The Act also applies to employees who regularly travel across State lines in the performance of their duties, even though the construction project itself is not covered.[13] If an employee regularly transports persons, materials, or equipment between jobs across State lines, or to a covered project, even within the State, as part of his duties for the contractor, he would be covered. As in other situations, the Act would not apply if crossing State lines or transporting persons, materials or equipment by the employee was isolated or sporadic rather than regular and recurring. Also, ordinary home-to-work travel, even across State lines, is not covered.

###### Footnotes -
  776.24

[13] *Reck v. Zarmacay,* 264 App. Div. 520, 36 N.Y.S. (2d) 394; *Colbeck* v. *Dairyland Creamery Co.,* 17 N.W. (2d) 262 (S. Ct. S.D.).
§ 779.224 Common control in other cases. ( a ) As stated in § 779.215 “common control” may exist with or without ownership. The actual control of the performance of the related activities is sufficient to establish the “control” referred to in the definition. In some cases an owner may actually relinquish his control to another, or by agreement or other arrangement, he may so restrict his right to exercise control as to abandon the control or to share the control of his business activities with other persons or corporations. In such a case, the activities may be performed under “common control.” In other cases, the power to control may be reserved through agreement or arrangement between the parties so as to vest the control of the activities of one business in the hands of another.
( b ) Activities are considered to be performed under “common control” even if, because of the particular methods of operation, the power to control is only seldom used, as where the business has been in operation for a long time without change in methods of operation and practically no actual direction is necessary; also common control may exist where the control, although rarely visibly exercised, is evidenced by the fact that mere suggestions are adopted readily by the business being controlled.
( c ) In the retail industry, particularly, there are many instances where, for business reasons, related activities performed by separate companies are so unified or controlled as to constitute a single enterprise. A common example, specifically named in the definition, is the leased department. This and other examples are discussed in §§ 779.225 through 779.235.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MAPCO INC.'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND MAPCO INC.'S
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         104,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  373,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,700
<INVENTORY>                                    109,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               619,100
<PP&E>                                       2,154,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 797,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,170,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          588,600
<BONDS>                                        608,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     540,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,170,700
<SALES>                                      3,353,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,353,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,941,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               140,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                214,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            130,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                (32,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    97,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
        

</TABLE>
#### Spurlock, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company.

Ties Judicata. To sustain a plea of *res judicata,*there must be evidence to show that the matters in issue and decided in the first suit are the same as,those presented for determination in the second.

*Error to Morgan Circuit*Court.—Hon. Q-. W. Miller, Judge.

Reversed.

*James P. Ross*for plaintiff in error.

*T. J. Portis*and *E. A. Andrews*for defendant in error.

Hough, J.

This suit was decided by the circuit court in favor of the defendant, on the ground that the matters now in issue were considered and decided in favor of the defendant in a former suit between the same parties. The judgment in the former suit is stated to be one of non-suit. The pleadings in that case are preserved in the transcript before us, but neither the rulings of the court upon which the judgment of non-suit was based, nor the judgment itself appear in the record. It may be that the .former judgment is a bar to a recovery in the present action, but a plea of *res judicata*should he supported by proof that the matters in issue and decided in the first suit, are the same as that presented for determination in the second, as neither the circuit court nor this court can take, judicial notice of such matters. *Banks v. Burnam,*61 Mo 77; *Kelly v. Hurt,*61 Mo. 463. The judgment of the circuit court must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.
#### § 778.117 Commission payments—general.

Commissions (whether based on a percentage of total sales or of sales in excess of a specified amount, or on some other formula) are payments for hours worked and must be included in the regular rate. This is true regardless of whether the commission is the sole source of the employee's compensation or is paid in addition to a guaranteed salary or hourly rate, or on some other basis, and regardless of the method, frequency, or regularity of computing, allocating and paying the commission. It does not matter whether the commission earnings are computed daily, weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly, or at some other interval. The fact that the commission is paid on a basis other than weekly, and that payment is delayed for a time past the employee's normal pay day or pay period, does not excuse the employer from including this payment in the employee's regular rate.

[36 FR 4981, Mar. 16, 1971]
#### § 783.20 Exemptions from the Act's provisions.

The Act provides a number of specific exemptions from the general requirements previously described. Some are exemptions from the overtime provisions only. Others are from the child labor provisions only. Several are exemptions from both the minimum wage and the overtime requirements of the Act. Finally, there are some exemptions from all three—minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor requirements. An examination of the terminology in which the exemptions from the general coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act are stated discloses language patterns which reflect congressional intent. Thus, Congress specified in varying degree the criteria for application of each of the exemptions and in a number of instances differentiated as to whether employees are to be exempt because they are employed by a particular kind of employer, employed in a particular type of establishment, employed in a particular industry, employed in a particular capacity or occupation, or engaged in a specified operation. (See 29 U.S.C. 203(d); 207 (b), (c), (h); 213 (a), (b), (c), (d). And see *Addison* v. *Holly Hill,* 322 U.S. 607; *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 866; *Mitchell* v. *Stinson,* 217 F. 2d 210.) In general, there are no exemptions from the child labor requirements that apply in enterprises or establishments engaged in transportation or shipping (see part 570, subpart G of this chapter). Such enterprises or establishments will, however, be concerned with the exemption from overtime pay in section 13(b)(6) of the Act for employees employed as seamen and the exemption from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements provided by section 13(a)(14) for employees so employed on vessels other than American vessels. These exemptions, which are subject to the general rules stated in § 783.21, are discussed at length in this part.
|                                       |   | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation |   | Name      Under Which such    |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
| Name      of Subsidiary                    |   | or      Organization               |   | Subsidiary      Does Business |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      Industries Canada, Ltd.        |   | Canada                             |   | Same                          |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      Argentina, S.A.                |   | Argentina                          |   | Same                          |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      France, S.A.S.                 |   | France                             |   | Same                          |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      Middle East                    |   | Egypt                              |   | Same                          |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      & Partners                 |   | Oman                               |   | Same                          |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      Industries Australia Pty. Ltd. |   | Australia                          |   | Same                          |
|                                       |   |                               |   |                          |
| Lufkin      Industries SRL                 |   | Romania                            |   | Same                          |
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
              FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
iVillage Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2003, the undersigned, Douglas W.
McCormick, Chief Executive Officer of iVillage Inc., and Scott Levine, Chief
Financial Officer of iVillage Inc., each hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to their respective knowledge:


      (1)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
            2003 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
            the period ended June 30, 2003 fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            iVillage Inc.


August 14, 2003                                        /s/ Douglas W. McCormick
---------------                                        ------------------------
Date                                                   Douglas W. McCormick
                                                       Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2003                                        /s/ Scott Levine
---------------                                        ------------------------
Date                                                   Scott Levine
                                                       Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 iVillage Inc. and will be retained by iVillage Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The information in this Exhibit 32 is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
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 Annual Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of 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 result of
        operations of the Company.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                     President, Chief Executive Officer
                       and Chief Financial Officer
                             August 21, 2003
#### ROCKPORT LUMBER CO v SOUTHWESTERN SAV & LN CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10187.

Decided November 11, 1929

Mr. H. W. Lower, Cleveland, for Lumber Co.

Messrs. F. L. Stevens & R. H. Spooner, Cleveland, for Sav & Ln Co.

MIDDLETON, P. J .& MAUCK, J. (4th Dist) and HOUCK, J. (5th Dist) sitting

MAUCK, J.

If it be assumed that the order referred to can, by parol evidence, be made to read as though it were addressed to The Southwestern Savings & Loan Company, and if the signature of Childs can be read as the act of the savings and loan company there would still be a fatal defect in the claim of the plaintiff. The contract made between Taylor and the loan company providgd__ for a particular way for the disbursement of the proceeds of the loan made to Taylor. It nowhere appears that Childs, the secretary of the savings and loan company had any power to make a contract for that company, or to modify one made by it. It follows that even though parol evidence had been admitted, making the order appear to be one upon the savings and loan company, that the secretary would have had no power to bind the company, and in any view to be taken of the matter, the trial court was right in entering the judgment that was entered.

Middleton, P. J.,. and Houck, J., concur, concur.
November 12th, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket 

NO. FAA-2015-0173 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 

(hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and 

videography, as well as implementation of emergency use UAS systems with public 

entities. Alaska Aerial Media requests an amendment to the exemption to allow for 

three (1) additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully comply with 

the conditions of the Exemption. 

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. wishes to operate the Freefly ALTA under the same 

conditions contained in the exemption. Attached hereto are the Flight 

Operations and Procedures Manuals (FOPM) for the one (1) additional UAS. 

All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of 

the Exemption. 

 Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning 

this request for amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan P. Marlow 

Alaska Aerial Media 

7960 Upper OMalley Road 

Anchorage Alaska 99507 

Tele: (907)-717-9794