alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Selection Factors","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8UQIwoEbky\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/24-factors\/\">Selection Factors<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/24-factors\/embed\/#?secret=8UQIwoEbky\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Selection Factors” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"8UQIwoEbky\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARIEL TOLLINCHI,

Defendant.

VERDICT

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

COUNT 1

As to Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, we find the Defendant, MARIEL 

TOLLINCHI:

G GUILTY G NOT GUILTY

COUNT 2

As to Count 2, conspiracy to launder money, we find the Defendant, MARIEL 

TOLLINCHI:

G GUILTY G NOT GUILTY

COUNT 3

As to Count 3, conspiracy to launder money, we find the Defendant, MARIEL 

TOLLINCHI:

G GUILTY G NOT GUILTY

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

If you find the defendant guilty, select one or both of the following options:

As to Count 3, we find the Defendant guilty of conspiring to commit the following offense:

G international transfer of proceeds;

G transaction of more than $10,000 in proceeds;

SO SAY WE ALL:

___________________________________ ______________________

Foreperson (please sign) Date

West Palm Beach, Florida

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 90-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       9,297,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,362,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (193,449)
<INVENTORY>                                    720,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,059,029
<PP&E>                                       1,272,298
<DEPRECIATION>                               (384,985)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,721,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,819,486
<BONDS>                                      1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,286,009
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,721,905
<SALES>                                      8,666,880
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,666,880
<CGS>                                        5,857,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,865,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,590,805)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,534,745
<INCOME-TAX>                                   800,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   734,495
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    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

I, Dottie Wommack  McNeely,  Chief Financial  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A-1 of  International  Star,
Inc.,  for the fiscal year ended  December 31,  2005,  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 Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB/A-1  fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial
condition and results of operations of International Star, Inc.


By:  /s/Dottie Wommack McNeely
     -----------------------------
Name: Dottie Wommack McNeely

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 14, 2006
#### § 958.21 Computation of time.

In computing any period of time provided for by this part, or any order issued pursuant to this part, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government, in which event it includes the next business day. Except as otherwise provided in these rules or an applicable order, prescribed periods of time are measured in calendar days rather than business days.
····_··. • Ryan International .Airlines .· --#. . 

4949 Harrison Ave. Rockford, IL 61108 · 815-387-3140 

October 24, 2012 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 

Dear Sir: w 

Ryan International Airlines requests Exemption from SF AR 112 to be able to fly across 

Tripoli FIR above 20,000 feet in support of a Wet Lease agreement with AtlasJet, a 

Turkish carrier, on a regular route between Turkey and Nigeria. 

The following information is provided: 

• The rule requirement from which exemption is sought; 

SF AR112 "Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Tripoli (Hill) Flight 

Information Region" 

• The nature and extent of the requested regulatory relief; 

Allowance for a US registered aircraft flown by Ryan International Airlines, a US 

F AR121 air carrier to transit the Tripoli FIR above 20,000 feet on routes between 

Turkey and Nigeria. 

• A description of each person or aircraft to be covered by the exemption; 

AIRBUS A330-223, MSN number 343, registration number N772RD. 

• Any information, views, or arguments to support the action sought; 

The threat from Libya since the downfall of the Gaddafi regime has subsided. 

European and other carriers have resumed overflight of Libya. The requirement to 

go around the Tripoli FIR adds an additional one hour of flying time for each 

round trip. 
• The reasons why a grant of exemption would be in the public interest; and 

The underlying rationale for the restriction has lapsed. To restrict just the US 

carriers from the overflight of Libya puts the US carriers at a competitive 

disadvantage with other world carriers and European carriers specifically. 

• The action to be taken by the petitioner to provide a level of safety equivalent 

to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought or the reason why 

a grant of exemption would not adversely affect public safety. 

Asking for approval to fly above 20,000 feet is similar to the restriction that is 

placed on US carriers in other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Ethiopia. 

This keeps aircraft out of the threat of manpads. The only other country where 

overflight is not permitted is North Korea. 

Any delay in granting this exemption would cause Ryan International Airlines 

significant fmancial harm as we would not be able to complywith our Wet Lease 

agreement in a cost affective way and would lose the business to a foreign carrier. 

Si~/ # 

\_( =7~ /~ ~ Thomas L Fay U 

VP Flight Operations 

Ryan International Airlines 

815-387-3280 

Cell 316-650-1681
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 2, 2005 of the
Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Robert W. HumphreysRobert W. HumphreysPresident & Chief Executive Officer
#### § 966.5 Effect of petition filing.

Upon receipt and docketing of the former employee's petition, the Recorder will notify the General Counsel that the petition has been filed and that a timely filed petition stays further collection action.
Rockingham

No. 78-066

#### Stoney-Brook Development Corporation v. Town of Pembroke

November 17, 1978

*Casassa, Mulherrin & Ryan,*of Hampton *{David A. Riggs*orally), for the plaintiff.

*L. Wilder Quint,*of Concord, by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Bois, J.

This is a petition for injunction and declaratory judgment. Basically the plaintiff challenges the validity and application of Pembroke’s “slow growth” ordinance. Hearing by the Court *{Bean,*
      *792J.) resulted in the filing of an agreed statement of facts and the transfer of the following question without ruling:

> Are the 1960 Subdivision ordinances and the Amendments thereto, including the July 26, 1977 Amendments, legal and enforceable under the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated and the applicable case law?

The pertinent part of the July 26, 1977 amendment (article 4) to the 1960 subdivision ordinances and amendments thereto is as follows:

> B. Amend said ordinance by adding the following new section:

> 1. A. Limitation: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance no owner of land of record shall subdivide his land into more than five (5) building lots in any one calendar year.

We focus our attention on the town’s main contention that the change contained (and adopted) in the warrant for a special town meeting was “not subdivision regulation, but is regulation for the general welfare of the town.” The defendant argues that “[T]his statute was enacted under RSA 31:39 for the purpose of the orderly operation of the town.” RSA 31:39 (Supp. 1977) empowers towns to pass bylaws “for making and ordering their prudential affairs.”

Even if this is not an attempt by the town meeting to act on subdivision regulations, but is rather an exercise of its power under RSA 31:39, we hold this to be an impermissible and invalid attempt to exercise its police power to regulate a subject matter such as would require compliance with RSA 36:19 — 29. This is in accord with our decision today in a detailed opinion invalidating a similar police power “growth” limiting ordinance enacted pursuant to the general police power. *Beck v. Town of Raymond,*118 N.H. 793, 394 A.2d 847 (1978).

We are cognizant of the problems facing communities throughout the State caused by the rapid increase in population. This court, however, is not the appropriate governmental branch to accommodate those concerns by interpreting a legislative mandate in a strained manner. In the light of our holding herein, we need not decide any other question posed by this appeal.

*Remanded.*

All concurred.
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 on Form 10-KSB of  Quotemedia,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the year  ended  December  31,  2002,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Keith
J.  Randall,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,  to my  best
knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


/s/ Keith J. Randall
---------------------------------
Keith J. Randall
Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2003
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 
  

					
	 -certificate number-

 
  
	  	EHang Holdings Limited	  	 -share numbers-
  

 



INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 

SHARE CERTIFICATE 
  

			
	AUTHORISED CAPITAL :
	 	 US$200,000 divided into 2,000,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each, of which:

(i) 1,904,577,337 Class A ordinary shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each;

(ii) 45,422,663 Class B ordinary shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each;

and (iii) 50,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each.





  

							
	        This is to certify that	 	 	  	 	Of                            	 

  

											
	
                
	 	 	 	 	                	 


  

					
	 is the registered holder of
	 	 	  	fully paid and non-assessable,


subject to the rules and laws governing the administration of the Company 

                    
                Given under the Common Seal of the said Company 

                    
                Date of issuance of certificate 
 The
Common Seal of the Company was hereunto affixed in the presence of 
  

					
		  		  	  

		  		  	Director
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 26324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10579]

[[Page 26324]]

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

 COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

 Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 16 May 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National 
Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., 
Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, 
parks, and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 
agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by emailing CFAStaff@cfa.gov; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: April 29, 2013 in Washington DC.
Thomas Luebke,
AIA, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10579 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6331-01-M
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 67

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

#### § 67.05-25 Special lighting requirements.

Whenever a structure is erected in a position on or adjacent to the edges of navigable channels and fairways, or lines of demarcation, the District Commander is authorized to require the structure to be marked by the lights which in his judgment are necessary for the safety of marine commerce, and without regard to the fact that the structure may be located in an area in which either Class “B” or Class “C” requirements are otherwise applicable. The requirements for the lights in any of these cases, shall not exceed those established for structures in the Class “A” areas.
#### KATE B. HOWLAND, Respondent, *v.*LAURA S. TAYLOR, Appellant.

*Attorney*— protection *of.\ Try courrt, upon application of client to*change,

When application is made by a client for leave to change his attorney, no professional misconduct on his part being alleged, and it appearing to the court, that the attorney has advanced large sums of money in the progress of the case, relying for compensation upon the interest of the client in the subject-matter of the action, the court will require the client to pay the amount due, or, in case he is unable to do so, to execute to the attorney a present assignment of so much of his interest in the subject-matter of the action, as may be necessary to insure the payment thereof.

*238Appeal from an order made at the Special Term, directing the substitution of'Messrs. Wingate *&*Cullen as attorneys for one of the defendants herein, in the place of Rufus F. Andrews.

*Rufus F.*Andrews, appellant, in person. *Wingate ds Cullen,*for respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Order modified, and as modified affirmed.
§ 310.5 Payment of postage on violation. ( a ) Upon discovery of activity made unlawful by the Private Express Statutes, the Postal Service may require any person or persons who engage in, cause, or assist such activity to pay an amount or amounts not exceeding the total postage to which it would have been entitled had it carried the letters between their origin and destination.
( b ) The amount equal to postage will be due and payable not later than 15 days after receipt of formal demand from the Inspection Service or the Manager, Mailing Standards, USPS Headquarters, unless an appeal is taken to the Judicial Officer Department in accordance with rules of procedure set out in part 959 of this chapter.
( c ) Refusal to pay an unappealed demand or a demand that becomes final after appeal will subject the violator to civil suit by the Postal Service to collect the amount equal to postage.
( d ) The payment of amounts equal to postage on violation shall in no way limit other actions to enforce the Private Express Statutes by civil or criminal proceedings.
[39 FR 33211, Sept. 16, 1974, as amended at 69 FR 54006, Sept. 7, 2004; 75 FR 12123, Mar. 15, 2010]
ex70.htm






  





  











  













 



Exhibit 10.70




 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 







 


 







 


 


$200,000                                                                           Date:  April 5, 2012


 


 







 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Warren Breslow, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($200,000.00), together with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.


 


 


The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder thereof.


 


 







 


 


 

 


 


 


”Borrower”


 


Aura Systems, Inc.

















_/s/ Melvin Gagerman___________________


Melvin Gagerman


Chief Executive Officer







 


Dated: April 5, 2012
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Bally Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Caller,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

Date:  June 20,2007
| /s/Robert C. Caller                                              |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Robert C. Caller                                                 |   |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |   |   |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                     |   |   |

 

----