alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.3** **Rule 15d-14(a)    Certification**     I, Richard G. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of Phibro Animal    Health Corporation, certify that:     (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of Phibro Animal Health Corporation;     (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(s) 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    annual 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(s) 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 the 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. /s/  Richard    G. Johnson    Richard G. Johnson,*Chief Financial Officer**(Principal Financial Officer)*     Date: February 14, 2006
AFS-10-309-E 

Jul 09 2010 

 Exemption No. 130H 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9409 

Lt. Colonel Timothy M. Kersey 

Chief, Flight Standards Division 

Department of the Air Force 

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Dear Lt. Col. Kersey: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 130, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

On June 10, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of the 

U.S. Air Force (USAF) for an extension of Exemption No. 130, as amended. That exemption 

from § 91.159 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows the USAF to operate its U-2 

aircraft under visual flight rules at or above flight level 600 without maintaining the 

appropriate cruising altitudes as prescribed by § 91.159(c). 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the USAF. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 130, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. § 40109, which the FAA Administrator has 
2

delegated to me, I grant your petition. Notwithstanding the provisions of the exemption, the 

pilot of an aircraft engaged in the above operations is not relieved of the responsibility to see 

and avoid other aircraft as required by other provisions of the regulations. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 130, as amended, to 

September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 130, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 130. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Elizabeth Ray 

Director, Airspace and Aeronautical Information Management 
3

Project No.: ATA-10-309-E 

Project Officer: _______________ 

ARM-105:TTHOMAS:06/21/10:Doc# 30211

ARM-1/100/105:AJR-33 

 Statistics: AirForce-311.doc, 431 words 

 Original, 22 Jun 2010 14:21 

 Style Index 9 Excellent for a Regulation 

 Average Sentence Length 18 Excellent

 Passive Index 6 Excellent 

LT COLONEL TIMOTHY M KERSEY 

CHIEF FLIGHT STANDARDS DIVISION 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

6500 SOUTH MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73169
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 of Health Express USA, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 26, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the
Company.

Date: August 17, 2005                        By:        /s/  Douglas Baker
                                                        ------------------
                                             Name:      Douglas Baker
                                             Title:     Chief Executive Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentications, 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 Health Express
USA, Inc. and will be retained by Health Express USA, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 14.403 Exemptions. ( a ) Certain requirements of Title 46, United States Code do not apply to the employment of merchant mariners on oceanographic research vessels. These requirements are those concerned with, among other things, the shipment and discharge of mariners, their pay and allotments, and the adequacy of their clothing. 46 U.S.C. 2113(2) allows exemptions of oceanographic research vessels from certain requirements of parts B, C, F, or G of subtitle II of 46 U.S.C., upon such terms as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security deems suitable. The exemptions available under this subpart are subject to the following terms: ( 1 ) No use of any exemption relieves the owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel of other statutory responsibilities for the protection of every mariner under his or her command.
( 2 ) If it is presented at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, the master or individual in charge must receive, consider, and appropriately address the legitimate complaint of any mariner.
( b ) For any oceanographic research vessel sailing with any mariner employed by any firm, association, corporation, or educational or governmental body or agency, the Commandant may grant exemptions from— ( 1 ) 46 U.S.C. 10301, Application;
( 2 ) 46 U.S.C. 10302, Shipping articles (for foreign and intercoastal voyages);
( 3 ) 46 U.S.C. 10307, Posting of articles;
( 4 ) 46 U.S.C. 10308, Foreign engagements;
( 5 ) 46 U.S.C. 10311, Certificates of discharge;
( 6 ) 46 U.S.C. 10313 and 10504, Wages;
( 7 ) 46 U.S.C. 10314 and 10505, Advances;
( 8 ) 46 U.S.C. 10315, Allotments;
( 9 ) 46 U.S.C. 10316 and 10506, Trusts;
( 10 ) 46 U.S.C. 10321 and 10508, General penalties;
( 11 ) 46 U.S.C. 10502, Shipping articles (for coastwise voyages); and
( 12 ) 46 U.S.C. 10509, Penalty for failure to begin coastwise voyages.
[CGD 94-004, 61 FR 56637, Nov. 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77999, Dec. 24, 2013]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1975 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1975

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 West Percy Street in Indianola, Mississippi, as the ``Minnie Cox 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2009

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 West Percy Street in Indianola, Mississippi, as the ``Minnie Cox 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MINNIE COX POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 West Percy Street in Indianola, Mississippi, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Minnie Cox Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Minnie Cox 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
---

---

# Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form F-3
(Nos. 333-130048 and 333-137153) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-136957, 333-110696, 333-100971 and
333-11650) of B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd. of our report dated March 25, 2005, with
respect to the financial statements of Odem Electronic Technologies 1992 Ltd. included in
this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006.

|                  |                                                         
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|Jerusalem, Israel | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman                               
|May 31, 2007      |                                                         
|                  | Kesselman & Kesselman                                   
|                  | Certified Public Accountants (Israel)                   
|                  | A member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited



---

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Gensym Corporation:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements (File Numbers: 333-03855, 333-03857, 333-03861, 333-
03863, 333-29707, 333-53455, 333-38464, 333-38488 and 333-68252).

                                         /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Arthur Andersen LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
October 15, 2001
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.1 Purpose and applicability. ( a ) This part prescribes special handling procedures for certain solid materials that present hazards when transported in bulk by vessel.
( b ) Except as noted in paragraph (c) of this section, this part applies to all domestic and foreign vessels in the navigable waters of the United States that transport bulk solid materials requiring special handling.
( c ) This part does not apply to an unmanned barge on a domestic voyage carrying a Potentially Dangerous Material (PDM) found in Table 148.10 of this part. All barges on international voyages must follow the requirements for PDM.
( d ) The regulations in this part have preemptive impact over State law on the same subject. The Coast Guard has determined, after considering the factors developed by the Supreme Court in *U.S.* v. *Locke,* 529 U.S. 89 (2000), that in directing the Secretary to regulate the safe transportation of hazardous material and the safety of individuals and property on board vessels subject to inspection, as well as the provision of loading information, Congress intended to preempt the field of safety standards for solid materials requiring special handling when transported in bulk on vessels.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5016 September Term, 2016

1:11-cv-00766-ABJ

Filed On: October 4, 2016 [1639069]

Christopher Van Hollen, Jr., 

 Appellee

v.

Federal Election Commission and Hispanic

Leadership Fund, 

 Appellees

Center for Individual Freedom,

 Appellant

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

Consolidated with 15-5017

M A N D A T E

In accordance with the judgment of January 21, 2016, and pursuant to Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Ken R. Meadows

Deputy Clerk

Link to the judgment filed January 21, 2016

USCA Case #15-5016 Document #1639069 Filed: 10/04/2016 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

GARCIA FOR CONGRESS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ____________________________) 

Civ. No. 3:13-2401-K 

MOTION 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56( c), defendant Federal Election 

Commission respectfully moves for summary judgment in this administrative review case. This 

motion satisfies the requirements of Local Rule 56.3(a) and (b), because the matters required by 

that Rule are set forth in the Commission's accompanying Memorandum of Law. 

In support of this motion, the Commission submits the attached Memorandum of Law 

and Proposed Order and Judgment. The Commission also submits this day as a separate 

submission the Administrative Record in this case. 

For these reasons and those set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law, the Federal 

Election Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of the 

Commission in this matter. 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 16 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 99
September 19, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson* 

Bar No. 457628 (D.C.) 

Deputy General Counsel - Law 

Kevin Deeley* 

Bar No. 644486 (MA) 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

Erin Chlopak* 

Bar No. 496370 (D.C.) 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

13'l c_ A c:;~ Benjamin A. Streeter III* 

bstreeter@fec.gov 

Bar No. 6181655 (IL) 

Attorney 

FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 219-0260 - facsimile 

(202) 694-1650 

* Counsel's pro hac vice applications (Docket Nos. 9-12) and the Commission's motion for 

waiver of fees and the local counsel requirement in Local Rule 83.10 (Docket No. 8) are 

pending. 

2 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 16 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 100
Exhibit 32.01

IDT CORPORATION

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 IDT Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for fiscal 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard S. Jonas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2011



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Howard S. Jonas    
|Howard S. Jonas        
|Chief Executive Officer

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 IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 900.207 Programmatic environmental reviews. ( a ) A programmatic NEPA review is used to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed action that is broad in reach, such as a program, plan, or policy (see 40 CFR 1502.4). Analyses of subsequent actions that fall within the program, plan, or policy may be tiered to the programmatic review, as described in 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28.
( b ) Programmatic NEPA reviews may take the form of a programmatic EA or a programmatic EIS.
( c ) A programmatic EA shall meet all of the requirements for EAs in subpart C of this part, including those for content and public involvement. In order to adopt a programmatic EA prepared by another agency that did not provide the same public involvement opportunities as the Commission, the Commission shall provide notice of the availability of the programmatic EA and make it available for public comment consistent with § 900.303(b) and (c) before adopting it.
( d ) A programmatic EIS shall meet all of the requirements for EISs in subpart D of this part and in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

VIRGINIA JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 12-1451 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

 Defendant.

 (JEB) (JRB) (RLW)

 Three-Judge Court

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court 

ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED;

2. The Case is DISMISSED; and

3. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant Federal Election Commission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________/s/_____________ 

JANICE ROGERS BROWN 

United States Circuit Judge 

_________/s/______________ 

ROBERT L. WILKINS 

United States District Judge 

_________/s/______________ 

JAMES E. BOASBERG 

United States District Judge

 Date: October 31, 2012 

Case 1:12-cv-01451-JEB-JRB-RLW Document 20 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.2



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-91583)  of SmartServ  Online,  Inc.  pertaining  to its Amended And
Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan,  Non-Qualified  Stock Option Agreements Between
The Registrant  And Its Employees,  and  Non-Qualified  Stock Option  Agreements
Between The  Registrant  And Its  Non-Employee  Directors  and the  Registration
Statement of SmartServ Online,  Inc. (Form S-8 No. 333-47936)  pertaining to its
Non-Qualified  Stock Option  Contract  Between The Registrant And Alan G. Bozian
and the 1999 Stock  Option of our report  dated April 23,  2003,  except for the
second  paragraph of Note 1 as to which the date is March 24, 2004, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of SmartServ Online, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form  10-KSB/A)  for the year ended  December 31,
2003.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


May 11, 2004
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40162

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNESTO LEYVA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-578-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ernesto Leyva,

Jr., raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v.

Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21

U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.