alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 98-20739

____________

R.H. MEDICAL GROUP, INC. and RICHARD C. HOLDREN,

Plaintiffs -Counter Defendants Appellees,

versus

DOUGLAS R. COLKITT, M.D.,

Defendant - Counter Claimant Appellant.

DOUGLAS R. COLKITT, M.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD C. HOLDREN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-4327)

January 3, 2000

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
-2-

R.H. Medical Group, Inc. (“R.H. Medical”) signed an agreement with Douglas R. Colkitt

obligating R.H. Medical and its president Richard C. Holdren to locate medical clinics for Colkitt to

purchase. R.H. Medical later initiated this action against Colkitt to collect commissions due under

the agreement.

We review de novo the district court’s finding that it had jurisdiction over Colkitt. See

Gundle Lining Constr. Corp. v. Adams Cty. Asphalt, Inc., 85 F.3d 201, 204 (5th Cir. 1996). Texas’s

long-armstatute, applicable here, creates personaljurisdiction to the extent permitted bydue process.

See id. Thus, Colkitt, as a non-resident, is subject to suit in Texas if: (1) he had minimum contacts

with Texas; and (2) subjecting him to suit in Texas would not “offend traditional notions of fair play

and substantial justice.” Id. (quotations omitted). 

Colkitt did not have minimum contacts with Texas. The contract was negotiated and signed

outside Texas, he never traveled to Texas, and none of his acquisitions were in Texas. Instead,

Holdren agreed to be in Pennsylvania when needed and to submit information to Colkitt in

Pennsylvania. Colkitt’s only contacts with Texas occurred when he sent some payments and

correspondence there, and when he agreed to language in the contract specifying that Texas law

would govern and that “all payments and performances under this Agreement with respect to

acquisition shall be performable in . . . Texas.” These contacts were not sufficient to subject Colkitt

to personal jurisdiction in Texas. See Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1192-96 (5th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, we VACATEthe judgment belowandREMANDwithinstructionsto dismissthe claims

arising from the action brought by R.H. Medical in Texas and to transfer Colkitt’s claims against

Holdren which he originally brought in Pennsylvania back to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT

I, Michael Timms, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Australian Forest
Industries;

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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 4. I
am 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 quarterly report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. 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

<PAGE>

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: June 14, 2005


/s/ Michael Timms
-----------------
Name: Michael Timms
Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
Secretario de Agricultura Dan Glickman

**NOTA DEL EDITOR**: Los siguientes son extractos del discurso delSecretario **Dan Glickman** en su presentación del presupuestopropuesto para USDA para el Año Fiscal 1998, en conferencia de prensa el6 de febrero.  La versión ampliada de sus palabras en esta presentaciónpuede ser consultada en la nota principal de este número concerniente ala propuesta de presupuesto para el Año Fiscal 98:
****Exhibit 23.1****

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation of our report (which report contains an explanatory paragraphregarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern)   dated September 23,2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Precision OpticsCorporation, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended June 30, 2008included in this Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filedRegistration Statement Nos. 333-35884, 333-87977 and 333-66297 on Form S-3,Registration Statement Nos. 333-89989, 333-94125, 333-72108, 333-97525,333-110946 and 333-128628 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos.333-141358 and 333-136033 on Form SB-2.

 
| /s/ Stowe &  Degon |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |
| September 26, 2008     |
| Leominster,  Massachusetts  |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

A.J.H., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 135 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
On respondent’s motion for reconsideration filed March 4,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (126 Or App 516, 869 P2d 868) modified; remanded for entry of corrected judgment April 27,

petition for review denied July 5, 1994 (319 Or 281)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JOHN LAYTON HARRIS, *Appellant.*

(CR90-551C; CA A72503)

872 P2d 445

Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, for motion.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

LEESON, J.

*615LEESON, J.

Pursuant to ORAP 6.25(l)(b), we allow the state’s motion for reconsideration of the disposition of this case, in which we remanded for resentencing with instructions to delete defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment. *State v. Harris,*126 Or App 516, 869 P2d 868 (1994). We agree that defendant need not be present for resentencing and that the case should be remanded for entry of a corrected judgment deleting defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment. *State v. Bivens,*127 Or App 83, 871 P2d 486 (1994). The judgment already contains a life-time period of post-prison supervision. Defendant’s 25-year minimum term is lawful.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified; remanded for entry of corrected judgment deleting sentence of life imprisonment.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 184 (Friday, September 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55477-55478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7975]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition 
to the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice 
concerning the final effect of the HHS

[[Page 55478]]

decision to designate a class of employees at the Ames laboratory, in 
Ames, Iowa, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under 
the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 
2000. On August 8, 2006, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the 
Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an 
addition to the SEC:

    Department of Energy (DOE) employees or DOE contractor of 
subcontractor employees who worked at the Ames Laboratory in one or 
more of the following facilities/locations: Chemistry Annex 1 (also 
known as ``the old women's gymnasium'' and ``Little Ankeny''), 
Chemistry Annex 2, chemistry Building (also known as ``Gilman 
Hall''), Research Building, or the Metallurgical Building (also 
known as ``Harley Wilhelm Hall'') from January 1, 1942 through 
December 31, 1954 for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 
work days, or in combination with work days within the parameters 
(excluding aggregate work day requirements) established for one or 
more classes of employees in the SEC, and who were monitored or 
should have been monitored.

    This designation became effective on September 7, 2006, as provided 
for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on September 7, 
2006, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this 
notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 
45226, telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#37787476647774737419707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="27686466746764636409606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 18, 2006.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 06-7975 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

 

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES 

 AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

PC Code: 046679 

DP Barcode: 386362 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: February 22, 2011 

SUBJECT: Review of Tolerance Petition for Fenamidone Rotational Residues in Crop Group 15 and 

16 except Rice 

FROM: James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor 

Environmental Risk Branch 3 

 Environmental Fate and Effect Division 

 Office of Pesticide Programs 

TO: Rosemary Kearns, Risk Manager Reviewer 

Tony Kish, Project Manager 

Fungicide Branch 

Registration Division (7505P) 

Thru: Katrina White, Ph.D., Acting Risk Assessment Process Leader 

 Dana Spatz, Branch Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch 3 

Environmental Fate and Effect Division 

 Office of Pesticide Programs 

This memorandum provides EFED review comments on tolerance petitions for fenamidone rotational 

residues. The registrant (Bayer Crop Science) is petitioning for a tolerance for fenamidone rotation 

residues at a plant back interval of 30 days for crop groups 15 and 16 (except rice), dried shell peas 

(except soybeans), foliage legume, and alfalfa for forage and hay. This tolerance petition is proposed 

for a seasonal maximum fenamidone application rate of 900 g/ha (0.8 lbs ai/A). 

Because a drinking water exposure assessment has been conducted for fenamidone use on corn, wheat, 

and soybeans at a seasonal maximum application rate of 0.8 lbs ai/A and no new environmental fate data 

have been submitted, EFED does not believe additional water modeling is needed to support this 

tolerance petition.
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 connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND VI, L.P., SERIES 7 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the Partnership.








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: October 7, 2010
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please attach the following grant letter to Cochise Community College (Docket No. FAA-2015-0812)
UAS Innovators LLC 11523 Palmbrush Trail Suite 353 Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 August 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 121410, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2185 under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, UAS Innovators, LLC (UAS Innovators), seeks to amend exemption No. 12410, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 2185; Submitted by UAS Innovators for review May 20, 2015 and subsequently granted by the FAA on August 11, 2015.
The original exemption made a request to allow operations for:

 Aerial Photography and Videography for the real estate, construction, and utilities industries

 Agricultural Surveying and Application

 sUAS Operator Training

 Product Demonstrations

 Research and Development
In granting the exemption, the FAA included the following restriction:
“The petitioner also requested authority to conduct UAS training. At this time, the FAA is unable to authorize UAS operations for traini ng until a further assessment is completed. When the FAA completes its review, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is permitted to train its own pilot in commands and visual observer s in accordance with condition no. 14 and the other conditions and limitations in this exemption.”
Training of sUAS operators other than UAS Innovators pilots is an essential part of our business plan and we respectfully request that the restriction be rem oved from exemption 12 410 . In reviewing current exemptions, it appears that the FA A began adding the restriction to approvals sometime in mid

- June 2015. Exemption requests that included requests for Training Approvals were granted prior to that time. Namel y the following Exemptions for sUAS training have been granted: 11311, 11888, 11789, 11663, 11668, 11625 , 11552 , 11570, 11588, 11493, 11430 , 11301, and 11265.UAS Innovators LLC 11523 Palmbrush Trail Suite 353 Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202

We believe that our Manual submission has included Procedures and Training S tandards of at least a quality and safety standard equal to or greater than any of the above approvals. The requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to UAS Innovators . We therefore request the Rem oval of the Training restriction f rom Exemption 12 410.

UAS Innovator s will gladly provide any additional information requested by the FAA to expedite this approval process.

Regards,

Timothy Ford President and CEO AeroUAVs, LLC 11523 Palmbrush Trail Sui te 353 Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 (314) 397

- 1110
§ 404.6 Prohibited activities. The following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful for any person to conduct or cause to be conducted: ( a ) Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas, or minerals within the Monument;
( b ) Using or attempting to use poisons, electrical charges, or explosives in the collection or harvest of a Monument resource;
( c ) Introducing or otherwise releasing an introduced species from within or into the Monument; and
( d ) Anchoring on or having a vessel anchored on any living or dead coral with an anchor, anchor chain, or anchor rope.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                     243,900,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              436,400,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (94,100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         4,019,000,000
<PP&E>                                   8,331,200,000
<DEPRECIATION>                         (1,314,900,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          17,300,100,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    3,192,300,000
<BONDS>                                 13,737,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 161,700,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            17,300,100,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,650,000,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              808,300,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           691,900,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         739,200,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,438,300,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                33,100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,405,200,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,405,200,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
# Map            Kuwait.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-84425, 333-84287, and 333-27187 of National Vision, Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated May 29, 2003, relating to the 2002 and 2001
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of National
Vision, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of National Vision, Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE
LLP 
Atlanta, Georgia
May 29, 2003
#### § 424.13 Sources of information and relevant data.

When considering any revision of the lists, the Secretary shall consult as appropriate with affected States, interested persons and organizations, other affected Federal agencies, and, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, with the country or countries in which the species concerned are normally found or whose citizens harvest such species from the high seas. Data reviewed by the Secretary may include, but are not limited to scientific or commercial publications, administrative reports, maps or other graphic materials, information received from experts on the subject, and comments from interested parties.
Exhibit 31.2

           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DTOMI, INC.

I, David M. Otto, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dtomi, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures 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  (the  registrant's  fourth  fiscal  quarter in the case of an quarterly
report) 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 functions):

a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control 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 control over
financial reporting.




September 13, 2005                   /s/ David M. Otto
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                         David M. Otto
                                         Chairman & Secretary
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)