alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 217.37 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. ( a ) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.36 for the activity identified in § 217.30(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: ( 1 ) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
( 2 ) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under this subpart were implemented.
( b ) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for this subpart or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
( c ) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.36 for the activity identified in § 217.30(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) *Adaptive management.* NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Hilcorp regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in this subpart. ( i ) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA: ( A ) Results from Hilcorp's monitoring from the previous year(s).
( B ) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies.
( C ) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by this subpart or subsequent LOAs.
( ii ) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and solicit public comment.
( 2 ) *Emergencies.* If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.36, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the Federal Register within thirty days of the action.
§ 23.33 How is the decision made to issue or deny a request for a U.S. CITES document? ( a ) Upon receiving a complete application, we will decide whether to issue a CITES document by considering: ( 1 ) The general criteria in § 13.21(b) of this subchapter and, if the species is protected under a separate law or treaty, criteria in any other applicable parts.
( 2 ) The CITES issuance criteria provided in this subpart (see subpart D of this part for factors we consider in making certain findings).
( b ) As needed, the U.S. Management Authority, including FWS Law Enforcement, will forward a copy of the application to the U.S. Scientific Authority; State, tribal, or other Federal government agencies; or other applicable experts. We may also query the Secretariat and foreign Management and Scientific Authorities for information to use in making the required findings.
( c ) You must provide sufficient information to satisfy us that all criteria specific to the proposed activity are met before we can issue a CITES document.
( d ) We will base our decision on whether to issue or deny the application on the best available information.
§ 73.3605 Retention of applications in hearing status after designation for hearing. ( a ) After an application for a broadcast facility is designated for hearing, it will be retained in hearing status upon the dismissal or amendment and removal from hearing of any other application or applications with which it has been consolidated for hearing.
( b ) Where any applicants for a broadcast facility file a request pursuant to § 73.3525(a) for approval of an agreement to remove a conflict between their applications, the applications will be retained in hearing status pending such proceedings on the joint request as may be ordered and such action thereon as may be taken. ( 1 ) If further hearing is not required on issues other than those arising out of the agreement, the proceeding shall be terminated and appropriate disposition shall be made of the applications.
( 2 ) Where further hearing is required on issues unrelated to the agreement, the presiding officer shall continue to conduct the hearing on such other issues pending final action on the agreement, but the record in the proceeding shall not be closed until such final action on the agreement has been taken.
( 3 ) In any case where a conflict between applications will be removed by an agreement for an engineering amendment to an application, the amended application shall be removed from hearing status upon final approval of the agreement and acceptance of the amendment.
( c ) An application for a broadcast facility which has been designated for hearing and which is amended so as to eliminate the need for hearing or further hearing on the issues specified, other than as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, will be removed from hearing status.
[44 FR 38511, July 2, 1979]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5213

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Federal government from

requiring State plans to mandate trip reduction measures.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 1994

Mr. DELAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Federal government from requiring State plans to mandate trip reduction measures.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CLEAN AIR ACT TO REMOVE

4 TRIP REDUCTION MANDATE.

5 Section 182(c)(5) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

6 7401 and following) is amended by adding at the end

7 thereof the following: ‘‘No revision of a State implementa8 tion plan to include provisions specified in this paragraph
2

•HR 5213 IH

1 shall be required to include measures described in section

2 108(f)(A)(iv).’’.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5215

To repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with acid rain.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 1994

Mr. DELAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with acid

rain.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CLEAN AIR ACT PROVISIONS RE4 LATING TO ACID RAIN.

5 Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and

6 following), relating to acid deposition control, is hereby

7 repealed.

Æ
Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements, numbers 333-35884, 333-87977 and 333-66297 on
Form S-3 and numbers 333-89989, 333-94125, 33-72108 and 333-97525 on Form S-8 of Precision Optics
Corporation, Inc. of our report dated July 31, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc. and Subsidiaries, as of June 30,
2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 2003, annual report on
Form 10-KSB of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.



Boston,
Massachusetts
September 24, 2003

---

QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 4, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Sequence VID Test Development Consortium has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC; General Motors Corp., Warren, MI; Chevron Products Co., Richmond, CA; Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI; Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, OH; Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Richmond, CA; Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX; ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Corporation, Paulsboro, NJ; Infineum International, Ltd., Linden, NJ; Afton Chemical Corporation, Richmond, VA; and R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc., Norwalk, CT. The general area of Sequence VID Test Development Consortium's planned activity is to develop an engine dynamometer-based fuel economy test for ILSAC GF-5 that will represent the viscometric and friction modifier oil effects on the fuel economy of current and future North American and Japanese engines.

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-7519 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the annual report of United American Healthcare Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stephen D. Harris, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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; and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.

Dated August 31, 2006


                                        By: /s/ Stephen D. Harris
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (principal financial officer)
CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Cecelia Lowman, Chief Financial Officer of Severn Bancorp, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Severn Bancorp, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual 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;
 
 c)  d isclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and
 
 
 Date:  March 25, 2004       /s/
 Cecelia Lowman, Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                    DETAIL COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   Years Ended December 31,
                                   ------------------------
                                  1997       1996        1995
                                  ----       ----        ----
                              (In thousands, except per share data)

<S>                             <C>         <C>        <C>
Diluted Income (Loss) Per Share:

   Net income (loss)            $(11,887)   $(4,301)   $ 1,310
                                 -------     ------     ------
                                 -------     ------     ------

   Weighted average shares
     outstanding                   5,456      4,893      4,893
   Dilutive effect of stock
     options                          -          -         189
                                 -------     ------     ------
   Weighted average common
     and common equivalent
     shares outstanding            5,456      4,893      5,082
                                 -------     ------     ------
                                 -------     ------     ------

   Net income (loss) from
     continuing operations
     per common and common
     equivalent share              (1.35)      (.60)      (.14)
                                 -------     ------     ------
                                 -------     ------     ------

   Net income (loss) from
     discontinued operations
     per common and common
     equivalent share               (.83)      (.28)       .40
                                 -------      ------    ------
                                $  (2.18)    $ (.88)   $   .26
                                 -------      ------    ------
                                 -------      ------    ------

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I,
Agustin Gomez de Segura, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cigma Metals
Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 1.
              The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
      September 30, 2007 which this certification accompanies 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
      Company.
 
 
 Date:
      February 17,
      2010
              BY:
              /s/ Agustin Gomez de
  SeguraAgustin
      Gomez de SeguraPresident
      and Chief Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 8
Case 16-26853 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 11:22:28 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 8
#### L. C. LEAVINS, GUARDIAN, v. LOVINA EWINS ET AL.

October Term, 1894.

*Probate court cannot correct error of law in its decree.*

An error of law in a decree of the probate court distributing the estate of a deceased person should be corrected by appeal, and if no appeal is taken the decree establishes the law of that case, and cannot be subsequently altered by the probate court.

Petition to the probate court for the district of Franklin, praying for the correction of an error in its decree distributing the estate of Lewis Ewins. The probate court granted the relief asked for, and the petitionees appealed. Heard at the April term, Franklin county, 1894, Taft, J., presiding, upon the motion of the appellants to dismiss the petition. Petition dismissed and exceptions by the petitioners.

*H. C. Adams*and *f. f. Hill*for the petitioners.

*H. Elmer Wheeler*for the petitionees.

The probate court cannot correct errors of law in its decrees. That can only be done by appeal. *Scott*v. *Stewart,*5 Vt. 57 ; *Mosseaux*v. *Brigham,*19 Vt. 457 ; *Smith*v. *257
      *Howard,*41 Vt. 74 and note; *Haynes*v. *Kimfton,*47 Vt. 46; *Ins. Co.*v. *Partridge,*49 Vt. 121; *Nixon*v. *Phelps,*29 Vt. 198.

START, J.

In 1874, the probate court for the district of Franklin made a decree, distributing the estate of Lewis Ewins under his will, by which the executor of the estate was ordered to pay to Rosabella, Lovina and Zenobia Ewins, in equal parts, the residue of the personal estate. From this decree no appeal was taken. In 1893, and after the decease of Rosabella Ewins, this petition was brought, praying the probate court to correct the decree of 1874 by striking out the words “in equal proportions” therein, thus making the three legatees joint owners of the personal estate instead of owners in common.

In making the decree of 1874, the probate court undertook to decree the estate according to the legal effect of the will. It had jurisdiction to make a decree distributing the estate, and its decree unappealed from was binding upon all parties. The construction given to the will was a legal construction, and became the law governing the distribution of the estate. If there was an error in the distribution of the estate, it was an error of law; and the remedy was by appeal to the higher court. No appeal having been taken, the law as then interpreted by the court became the law of the case. The construction thus given to the will was a judicial construction. Property rights vested under it; and, for error in that construction, they cannot now be disturbed. *Stone*v. *Peasley,*28 Vt. 7x6, and cases there referred to.

*Judgment affirmed; cause certified to the frobate court.*