alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Todd B. Barnum, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Max & Erma’s Restaurants,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably
24

 
   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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: June 20, 2007                                                       /s/ Todd B. Barnum   Todd B. Barnum   Chairman of the Board, and
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

      ( print page 45294)    

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is publishing notice of proposed release from aeronautical use of approximately 22,170 square feet of land at the Leesburg Executive Airport, Leesburg, Virginia to the Town of Leesburg. The release will facilitate the widening of Sycolin Road that will improve access to the airport and provide needed capacity of the road system. There are no impacts to the Airport and the land is not needed for airport development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2007.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Terry J. Page, Manager, FAA Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA 20166.

In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Timothy B. Deike, Director, Leesburg Executive Airport, at the following address: Mr. Timothy B. Deike, Director, Leesburg Executive Airport, 1001 Sycolin Road, SE., Leesburg, Virginia 20175.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Terry Page, Manager, Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, VA 20166; telephone (703) 661-1354, fax (703) 661-1370, e-mail                         *Terry.Page@faa.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 5, 2000, new authorizing legislation became effective. That bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) requires that a 30-day public notice must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed on an interest in surplus property.

Issued in Chantilly, Virginia, on August 6, 2007.

Terry J. Page,

Manager, Washington Airports District Office, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 07-3919 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Third Amendment to the 2002 Plan, effective as of January 26, 2006



 Exhibit 10.6.5 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ANNTAYLOR STORES CORPORATION 
 2002 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK AND UNIT AWARD
PLAN 
 The AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 2002 Stock Option and Restricted Stock and Unit Award Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of
January 26, 2006 (the “Effective Date”) with respect to all Options (as defined in the Plan) granted pursuant to the Plan, including grants outstanding before the Effective Date, as set forth below. 
 1. The last two sentences of Section 6(i)(2) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: 
 “Following the Acceleration Event, the Committee may provide for the cancellation of all Options then outstanding. Upon such cancellation, the
Corporation shall make, in exchange for each such Option, a payment either in (i) cash; (ii) shares of the successor entity; or (iii) some combination of cash or shares thereof, at the discretion of the Committee, and in each case in
an amount per share subject to such Option equal to the difference between the per share exercise price of such Option and the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date during the prior sixty-day period that produces the highest Fair
Market Value.” 
 Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas L. Redding, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Henry County Bancshares, Inc. 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 definedin 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, includingits 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 theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are likely toadversely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 6, 2005 

 

/s/ Thomas L. Redding

Thomas L. Redding, Sr. Vice President and CFO

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Page 1 oi'2 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

Dockct: IRS-2009-0008 

Request for Information for Paul W ellstone and Pele Dorrienici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: !RSr20D9-01)OX:I~I)C)l 

Rqucst for lnfonnation Regarding Ihc Paul Wells tone and Pete Dvmcnici Mental Health Parity 

an3 Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRSS2C)O9-0008-Oq$2 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Julie Sharon Murphy 

Address: 

Albuqu crque, N M, 

Organization: Waves of Change Neuro t'eedback l'herapy 

General Comment 

Corr~ments IT: Regulatory Guidmcc USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157,lI R specific areas 1 and 4 

1 am n clinical counselor who provides EEG biofeedback treatment to people with 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disordcrs. EEG biofeedback, 

also known 3.5 Neurofeedback, is an empirically validated and widely recognized 

ef'fbctivc non-medication treatmmt fur ADHL), and many other cundilions. There 

art: over 50 studies evaluating the e t'ikctivcncss of EEG biofeedback in thc 

treatment of ADHD, Substance Abuse. and Autism. A recent review of the 

literature concluded that EEG biofeedback meets the sarrle criteria ac medication 

for treating ADHD and "sl~ould always be considered as an inte~vention for this 

disol+cler by the clinician". 

This importan1 treatment has bem dcnicd by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, Untited 

Behavioral Health, Blue Cross, Digmi. and Amerigronp. 'Phis is a mimitation of an 

effective and validat~d treatment for a mental heal lh problem. The reasons given 

point to the fact that the insurance companies arc using evidence-based v.r- teria 

that are far murc restrictive for mental health services than the criteria used fur 

rnedical/surgical services. 

Neuro fedback clinic~ans believe that the parity regulations, based on legal 

reviews of the pmity statute should require that e~nployers and plans pay for the 

samc range and scope of services I'or bchaviornl treatments as they do tor 

medical/surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive in thcir 
Page 2 of 2 

managed care c-riteria and rcviews for mental health and substance abuse 

disorders as compared to rnedical/surgical disorders. We hope that the 

regulations will clarify that this violation of the parity statutc will not continue so 

that people have access to the treatments that will help them thc most.
#### § 230.88 Throttles.

Throttles shall be maintained in safe and suitable condition for service, and efficient means shall be provided to hold the throttle lever in any desired position.
### Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature:

___________________________ Project No.: 0172.0 7.005.50 7 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 6/24/2010 Time: 3 :00 pm E ST

Company Name: Marathon Oil Maverick Sprin gs

( WY0000779) Contact Name: Linda Taylor

Phone No.: ( 307) 527

- 2103

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : Sulf ide D ischarges R eported to DMR in 2008



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I c alled Marathon Oil Maverick Springs on June 24, 2010 to speak with RJ Whisonant regarding sulfide

discharges from the facility in the 2008 DMR database. I left him a message identifying myself and the reason

for calling. Mr. Whisonant returned my call and told me that Linda Taylor would be contacting me regarding

the sulfide discharges in 2008.

Ms. Taylor returned my call and confirmed the December 2008, DSCH 001 sulfide concentration of 24 mg/L

reported in the 2008 DMR database. She also confirmed that th e sulfide concentration did not have a BDL

indicator. I also asked her for the average flow rate for December 2008, Ms. Taylor confirmed the 1.645 MGD

flowrate for that period. She stated that DSCH 001 is a surface water discharges from the oil facility th at is

discharged to a tributary then to 5 Mile Creek. She also stated that the Energy Lab analyzes their sample for

reporting to DMR.

Ms. Taylor confirmed that there was no reporting limit for sulfide at the facility. She stated that there was a

limit for sulfate (3,000 mg/L).
20-F










Exhibit 10.1  



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 



We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-123410,
333-113932, , 333-08826, 333-10092, 333-12466 and 333-12988) and Forms F-3 (Registration
No. 333-113950 and 333-12698) of our report dated February 12, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. included in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005. 



		
		
		
		
		
	 	Yours Truly,
	 
	 
	 	/s/ KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
	March 23, 2006	KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
	Tel Aviv, Israel	A Member of Ernst & Young Global
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6118

JAMES PRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. GAYLEN SANDERS, in official and private capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, for declatory judgment and injunctive relief; FREDERICK PAUER; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-03924-CMC-PJG)

Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 20, 2009

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Price, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: James Price appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint in part and granting summary judgment to the defendants in part. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Price argues the district court erred by dismissing the case against John and Jane Doe without first ordering the defendants to identify them. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires dismissal if the “defendant is not served within 120 days after a complaint is filed,” unless the court grants an extension for good cause. Price did not serve the summons and amended complaint upon the unknown defendants within 120 days after filing the amended complaint or move the district court to extend the 120-day period. Consequently, the district court properly dismissed John and Jane Doe from the suit. Price alleges, for the first time on appeal, that the overcrowded living conditions are da ngerous because the rooms are designed for only a single occupant. This court generally declines to address claims raised for the first time on appeal, unless such a refusal would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. United States Dep’t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining

Co. , 452 F.3d 275, 283 (4th Cir. 2006). Price has not advanced any reason why he did not present this argument below, nor has he argued that any exceptional circumstances justify departing

23 from the general rule. Based upon our review of the record, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting such a departure. Finally, Price argues that the district court erred by deciding whether he could prove he was assaulted and by relying

on defendants’ evidence where there were material factual issues in dispute. Price misinterprets the district court opinion, because the district court did not make any finding on whether Price could prove the assault, nor did it rely on defendants’ evidence to resolve a material factual issue. Thus, these

issues are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2416

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require open campus security

crime logs at institutions of higher education.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require

open campus security crime logs at institutions of higher

education.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open Campus Police

5 Logs Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. DAILY RECORD AND DISCLOSURE OF REPORTED

7 CRIMES.

8 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 485(f) of the Higher

9 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f) is amended by

10 adding at the end the following new paragraph:
2

•HR 2416 IH

1 ‘‘(8) Each institution participating in any program

2 under this title which maintains either a police or security

3 department of any kind shall make, keep, and maintain

4 a daily log, written in a form that can be easily under5 stood, recording in chronological order all crimes against

6 persons or property reported to its police or security de7 partment, the date, time, and location of such crimes, and,

8 if an arrest has been made, the names and addresses of

9 all persons arrested and charges against such persons ar10 rested. The provision of this paragraph shall not be con11 strued to require an institution to identify in its log, unless

12 otherwise provided by law, the names of the persons re13 porting the crime, the victim or victims, any witnesses or

14 suspects who have not been arrested, or other information

15 relating to any investigation of the crime. All entries in

16 such daily logs shall, unless otherwise provided by State

17 or Federal law, be open to public inspection.’’.

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

19 this section shall take effect on September 1, 1996.

Æ
§ 214.501 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to prevent accidents and casualties caused by the lawful operation of on-track roadway maintenance machines and hi-rail vehicles.
( b ) This subpart prescribes minimum safety standards for on-track roadway maintenance machines and hi-rail vehicles. An employer may prescribe additional or more stringent standards that are consistent with this subpart.
( c ) Any working condition that involves the protection of employees engaged in roadway maintenance duties covered by this subpart but is not within the subject matter addressed by this subpart, including employee exposure to noise, shall be governed by the regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, September 27, 1995 (121), Para 121.33 Senate Bill and Joint Resolution Referred]
[Page 1458]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.121.33  senate bill and joint resolution referred

  A bill and a concurrent resolution of the Senate of the following 
titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred 
as follows:

       S. 619. An Act to phase out the use of mercury in batteries 
     and provide for the efficient and cost-effective collection 
     and recycling or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium 
     batteries, small sealed lead-acid batteries, and certain 
     other batteries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Commerce.
       S. Con. Res. 21. Concurrent resolution directing that the 
     ``Portrait Monument'' carved in the likeness of Lucretia 
     Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, now in 
     the Crypt of the Capitol, be restored to its original state 
     and be placed in the Capitol rotunda; to the Committee on 
     House Oversight.
```
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0637 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Rose Boerner 

Address: 

Sedona, AZ, 

Organization: NAMI Sedona 

General Comment 

On behalf of NAMI Sedona (Arizona), I am writing to submit comments on the Interim Final Rules 

under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 and in doing so NAMI Sedona endorses the separate comments submitted by the Parity 

Implementation Coalition and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. 

The new law, known as the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008, requires most group health plans to cover treatment for mental illness and 

substance use disorders on the same terms and conditions as medical conditions such as 

diabetes, heart disease, cancer and asthma. Specifically the new law bars health plans from 

imposing durational treatment limits (caps on inpatient days or outpatient visits) or financial 

limitations (higher cost sharing, deductibles or out of pocket limits) that do not also apply to 

medical-surgical coverage. 

The regulations provide new standards with respect to equitable coverage for "non-quantitative" 

treatment limits, which are defined in the regulations as medical management, drug formulary 

design, step therapy, "fail first" policies and exclusions from coverage based on failure to 

complete a course of treatment. This means that the standards for equitable coverage will apply 

to discriminatory application of medical management techniques as applied to mental illness 

treatment. 

NAMI Sedona looks forward to the timely implementation of the parity regulations. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: April 30, 2010 

Received: April 29, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae375a 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/30/2010