alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### RlMENTO F :;PORW!O N 

## FREEDO M JET S Aviation , Inc . n o strings , jus t wings . SiV o 

### ^n ' B A i<

> 0 ' Apri l 12 , 201 1 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun d Floor , Roo mW12-14 0 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Exemptio n No. : 992 3 from1 4 CF R(FA RSection ) 91.147 T o Who mI t

Ma y Concern : We ar e in receip t

o f you r recen t correspondenc e date d Marc h 22 , 201 1 regardin g Freedo m Jet s Aviation , Inc . Exemptio n No. : 992 3 fro m1 4 CF R(FA RSection ) 91.147 . We woul d lik e t o informyo u a t

thi s time tha t

ou r compan y n o longe r

operate s aflight

schoo l an d w e are stricti y aPar t

91/13 5 operatio n only . Therefore , w e will no t b e seekin g relie f

fromrequirin g asecon d dru g an d alcoho l progra mfo r 1 4 CF R91.14 7 sigjitseein g operation s i n accordanc e with th e requirement s establishe d unde r 1 4 CF R11.6 1 - ll.lOl . Shoul d yo u hav e any question s o r concern s regardin g thi s matter , I ca n b e reache d a t

th e numbe r note d belo w o r

m y cel l phon e numbe r

860-455-5556 . Sincere] Bria n P . Su t Presiden t /cm s

3 9 Airpor

t Roa d - Nort h Windha m- CT 0625 6 • te

l 1.860.456.415 6 - fa

x 1.860.456.254

0
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

 

          I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., certify that: 

          1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of inTEST 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 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)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

        (c)  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 

        (d)  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 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: 

        (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. 

Date: May 12, 2006/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
EX-4.65



 Exhibit 4.65 

English Summary 
 of

 Supplemental Agreement to the Community Services Framework Agreement 

Between 
 China
Telecommunications Corporation 
 and 

China Telecom Corporation Limited 
 China
Telecommunications Corporation (“Party A”) and China Telecom Corporation Limited (“Party B”) entered into the Supplemental Agreement to the Community Services Framework Agreement on September 23, 2015. 

The key terms and conditions of the Supplemental Agreement are as follows: 

1. The Parties agree to amend Article 3.1 of the Community Services Framework Agreement as follows: “The charges payable under the Community Services
Framework Agreement shall be determined by reference to market rates. Market rates shall mean the prices at which the same or similar type of products or services are provided by Independent Third Parties in the ordinary course of business and under
normal commercial terms. When determining the relevant market rates, to the extent practicable, management of the Company shall take into account the rates of at least two similar and comparable transactions entered into with or carried out by
Independent Third Parties in the ordinary course of business in the corresponding period for reference. 
 For avoidance of doubt, where there is no or it
is not possible to determine the market prices, the prices are to be agreed between the parties based on the reasonable costs incurred in providing the services plus the amount of the relevant taxes and reasonable profit margin. For this purpose,
“reasonable profit margin” is to be fairly determined by negotiations between the parties in accordance with the internal policies of the Company. When determining the relevant “reasonable profit margin”, to the extent
practicable, management of the Company shall take into account the profit margin of at least two similar and comparable transactions entered into with Independent Third Parties in the corresponding period or the relevant industry profit margin for
reference.” 
 2. The execution, validity, performance, interpretation of this Supplemental Agreement and any relevant dispute resolutions shall be
governed by the PRC laws. 
 3. This Supplemental Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2016. If there is any conflict between this
Supplemental Agreement and the Community Services Framework Agreement, this Supplemental Agreement shall prevail.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1435

To provide that covert investigative practices involving Federal attorneys

in criminal investigations and prosecutions shall not be considered dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misrepresentative, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that covert investigative practices involving Federal attorneys in criminal investigations and prosecutions

shall not be considered dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful,

or misrepresentative, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Federal Investigation

5 Enhancement Act of 2001’’.
2

S 1435 IS

1 SEC. 2. COVERT INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES CONDUCTED

2 BY FEDERAL ATTORNEYS.

3 Section 530B(a) of title 28, United States Code, is

4 amended by inserting after the first sentence, ‘‘Notwith5 standing any provision of State law, including disciplinary

6 rules, statutes, regulations, constitutional provisions, or

7 case law, a Government attorney may, for the purpose of

8 enforcing Federal law, provide legal advice, authorization,

9 concurrence, direction or supervision on conducting covert

10 activities, and participate in such activities, even though

11 such activities may require the use of deceit or misrepre12 sentation.’’

Æ
[Crim. No. 3064.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

February 15, 1938.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DOUGLAS J. VENABLE, Appellant.

William J. Clark for Appellant.

*74U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Alberta Belford, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

WOOD, J.

Defendant was charged in the information with the crime of grand theft and in a second count with the crime of forgery. At a trial before the court without a jury he was found guilty on both counts. He prosecutes this appeal from the judgment.

On the charge of grand theft it was proved that one M. Farman attempted to purchase an automobile from defendant for the total sum of $627. She delivered to him part of the purchase price in cash and later gave him a check for $432. The car was never delivered to her. On the count charging forgery it was established that at the time defendant received the check for $432 he executed and delivered a forged receipt for $627.

Defendant contends that the prosecution may not charge both grand theft and forgery under the circumstances of the case, arguing that the acts shown in evidence constituted a single transaction. There is no merit in the contention.  The test is the identity of the offenses as distinguished from the identity of the transactions from which they arise. A defendant may be convicted of two separate offenses arising out of the same transaction when each offense is stated in a separate count and when the two offenses differ in their necessary elements and one is not included within the other. *(People*v. *Zimmer,*23 Cal. App. (2d) 581 [73 Pac. (2d) 923] ; *People*v. *Majors,*65 Cal. 138, 145 [3 Pac. 597, 52 Am. Rep. 295]; *People*v. *Bentley,*77 Cal. 7, 9 [18 Pac. 799, 11 Am. St. Rep. 225] ; *People*v. *Ciulla,*44 Cal. App. 725, 726 [187 Pac. 49]; *People*v. *Brannon,*70 Cal. App. 225, 228 [233 Pac. 88] ; *People*v. *Herbert,*6 Cal. (2d) 541, 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 909].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Crail, P. J., concurred.

MoCOMB, J., Concurring.—I concur in the judgment. However, I do not believe the appeal is properly before this court.
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|

| Important Links:Bay Area Support Group                                                                                                Download and view the latest SRF newsletters in pdf format:Winter 2002 (current)Summer 2002                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Need Acrobat Reader? Click here for download | main page |         research & science |         raising awareness |         understanding scleroderma |         available resources |         about us |         you can help
800-441-CURE | General Questions? Click Here | © 2002 SRF, all rights reserved. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1334 

Calling upon the Government of China to account for those detained during 

March 2008 protests and to recognize the fundamental human rights 

of all Tibetans, including monks, nuns, and innocent civilians, currently 

detained by the Government of China. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2008 

Mr. CHABOT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Calling upon the Government of China to account for those 

detained during March 2008 protests and to recognize 

the fundamental human rights of all Tibetans, including 

monks, nuns, and innocent civilians, currently detained 

by the Government of China. 

Whereas in 1951, an agreement between the Tibetan and 

Chinese Governments outlined an autonomous Tibetan 

region to be governed by the Dalai Lama; 

Whereas in 1959, the Tibetan people protested Chinese occupation of the Tibet Autonomous Region, which resulted 

in the deaths of thousands of innocent Tibetans and the 

exile of the 14th Dalai Lama; 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1334 IH 

Whereas efforts to recognize the 49th anniversary of that 

tragic day were met with disproportionate uses of force 

by Chinese officials, including fatal force, resulting in the 

deaths of hundreds of Tibetans; 

Whereas efforts by Dalai Lama to end the violence and negotiate the future of the Tibetan Autonomous Region have 

gone unheeded by Chinese officials; 

Whereas thousands of protestors, including Buddhists monks, 

nuns, and other civilians, have been arbitrarily detained 

without due process since March 2008; 

Whereas approximately 1,000 of those protestors remain unaccounted for by the Government of China; 

Whereas eyewitnesses describe beatings in prison, as well as 

a lack of food and necessary medical care; and 

Whereas detaining and mistreating detainees violates international standards, including those of the international 

convention on civil and political rights: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls on Chinese officials to immediately ac3 count for the status of the detained individuals, in4 cluding their names, location, and current medical 

5 conditions; 

6 (2) calls on Chinese officials to allow inter7 national observers to visit detention facilities and the 

8 Tibet Autonomous Region to ensure that the rights 

9 of those being detained and the Tibetan people as a 

10 whole are being recognized; 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1334 IH 

1 (3) calls on Chinese officials to immediately re2 lease or file and make public formal criminal charges 

3 against the detained individuals; and 

4 (4) calls on Chinese officials to adhere to inter5 national standards of due process and justice, in6 cluding proceedings before an independent judiciary, 

7 when bringing to trial those charged with formal of8 fenses. 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
From: cjv@Tyndale.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

CJ Van Wagner

West Chicago, IL 60185
From: b1a9r4r7y@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Barry Falkenstine

Colorado Springs, CO 80922
#### John L. Miller, Respondent, *v.*Herman Raub, Defendant, and John H. Springer, Appellant.

*Milter*v. *Raub,*140 App. Div. 910, affirmed.

(Argued December 4, 1912;

decided December 20, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered *650November 1, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

*George W. Glaze*for appellant.

*Wilbur F. Earp*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
Exhibit
32
 
 Pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)
 
 Theundersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of StellarOne Corporation, respectively, certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, which
accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of StellarOne
Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing
certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350), and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other
person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any
purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the
foregoing certification except as required by law.
 
 Date:November 9,
2009
 /s/
      O. R. Barham, Jr.President
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/
      Jeffrey W. FarrarExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
From: Georgia R Maclean

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:19:37 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00309

- CV

Jo Ann RIVERA , Victoria Rivera and Philip M. Ross,

Appellants

v.

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM

, Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- CI

- 08262

Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellants.

SIGNED May 24, 2023.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
  a.
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
at March 31, 2006, and the results of the Companys operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006.
 May 10, 2006
    /s/ BRUCE R. KNOOIHUIZENBruce R. KnooihuizenExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
and principal financial officer
#### Charles W. Osborne, Respondent, v. Nicholas D. Randall, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J., and Follett, J.