alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Virage Logic Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Adam Kablanian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Adam Kablanian

Adam Kablanian

President and Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2003
Document

Exhibit 10.9.2

AMENDMENT TWO
TO
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL 401(k) PLAN


The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental 401(k) Plan is amended as follows, effective as provided herein:


1.Effective December 9, 2020, the definition of “Separation from Service” is amended as follows:
“Separation from Service” shall mean that employment with an Employer terminates such that it is reasonably anticipated that no further services will be performed for the Employer or any member of the Company’s Controlled Group, as defined by Section 414 of the Code. Separation from Service shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Section 409A of the Code and the regulations thereunder.


    
                THE COCA-COLA COMPANY BENEFITS COMMITTEE




            
                                                
                By: Silvina Kippke


                Date:     December 9, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130529 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130591 Marilyn Kelly 130594 Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices DEBRA JACKSON, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Shirley Jackson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130529 COA: 263766 Wayne CC: 04-421501-NH HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, a/k/a HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, MICHAEL S. EICHENHORN, M.D., and VENCOR HOSPITAL, a/k/a KINDRED HOSPITALS EAST, L.L.C., d/b/a KINDRED HOSPITAL DETROIT, Defendants-Appellees,

and

MICHIGAN HOSPITALISTS, P.C., and MASOOD AHMAD, M.D., Defendants-Appellants,

and

HARPEL S. JANDE, M.D., Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

DEBRA JACKSON, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Shirley Jackson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130591 COA: 263766 Wayne CC: 04-421501-NH HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,2

a/k/a HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, MICHAEL S. EICHENHORN, M.D., MICHIGAN HOSPITALISTS, P.C., MASOOD AHMAD, M.D., and HARPEL S. JANDE, M.D., Defendants-Appellees,

and

VENCOR HOSPITAL, a/k/a KINDRED HOSPITALS EAST, L.L.C., d/b/a KINDRED HOSPITAL DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

DEBRA JACKSON, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Shirley Jackson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130594 COA: 263766

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, a/k/a HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, and MICHAEL S. EICHENHORN, M.D., Defendants-Appellants, Wayne CC: 04-421501-NH

and

VENCOR HOSPITAL, a/k/a KINDRED HOSPITALS EAST, L.L.C., d/b/a KINDRED HOSPITAL DETROIT, MICHIGAN HOSPITALISTS, P.C., and MASOOD AHMAD, M.D., Defendants-Appellees,

and

HARPEL S. JANDE, M.D., Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 17, 2007, the applications for leave to appeal the January 17, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals were held in abey ance pending the decision in
Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the applications are_______________________________________ __ 3

again considered, and th ey are DENIED, because we are no t persuaded that the questions presented should be review ed by this Court.

l0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
(Reap. Dec. 10924)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 6668.

(Decided March 22, 1965)

*Sharp é Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 63667, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 6.That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will he entered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.1**

I, Lee-Lean Shu,certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of GSI Technology, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  June 20, 2007
| /s/ Lee-Lean Shu                       | * * |
|----------------------------------------|----------|
| Lee-Lean Shu                           |     |
| *President,  Chief Executive Officer,* | * * |
| *and  Director*                        | * * |

 

----
Skip to Main Content Contact Us|About Us|Sign In
     Top Links
 Project Search Navigation
 Home
 Funding
 Research
 Publications
 Newsletters
HomeThe Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System (IFT-DSS)
        Breadcrumb
    Main Body
 The Current Environment
        After extensive client interaction and practitioner sensing, the Joint Fire Science Program 
        determined that a lack of integration of data, software models, and systems is a huge, costly, 
        and continuing problem.  Existing fire and fuel models are generally stand-alone, difficult to 
        'string' together, problem-specific, lacking support, and not accessible to all stakeholders.  
        Therefore, information technology governance is challenged because development standards do not 
        exist resulting in redundant and fragmented efforts.
         
        JFSP Is Building an Integrated Framework
        JFSP is funding development of a web-based, service-oriented framework architecture for fuels 
        treatment planning as an example and potential stepping stone towards a larger inter-connected 
        system-of-systems (S-O-S) framework for wildland fire. This data and software integration 
        framework is called the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFT-DSS).  It is 
        currently in development and testing.
        
        While our current efforts are focused specifically on fire and fuel management, the methods, 
        guidelines, and processes we discover in development of IFT-DSS will be applicable to a whole 
        host of natural resource decision support information needs.  The bottom line is major savings in 
        time and effort to complete comprehensive fuel treatment analysis across all landscapes.
         
        Vision for the Fire and Fuels CommunitySeven Critical Business Needs
        Fire managers identified seven business needs focused on the following processes:
        data acquisition and preparation
            assessment of current fuel conditions
            prescribed burn planning
            placement of treatments
            analysis of treatment effects 
            risk assessment among several alternatives 
            ability to customize data inputspdf documentA Powerful New Planning Environment for Fuels 
        Managers: The Interagency Fuels Treatment
        Decision Support SystemVisit our project website for more information.Footer
 The Basics
			Fire Science Info
			Partners
			What is FireScience.gov?HomeContact UsAbout Us
			Fire Science Exchange NetworkFundingResearchPublicationsNewsletters
			Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Accessibility
            The Joint Fire Science Program funds scientific research on wildland fires and 
                distributes results to help policymakers, fire managers and practitioners make sound 
                decisions. More...
          Release 1.0
Before the First Division,

August 3, 1949

No. 53444.

protests 147365-K, etc. (New York).

#### Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 57610.

#### Williams, Clarke Company Agents for Atlas Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 952974-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of goatskins the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Fobd, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra,*only so far as the items marked *“A”*are concerned.
Cc:

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Faulk, ScatHOS,n'n •., pc

, '. ,;'if,c'il"f',Tlh\j

,,"V, 1..;11 11\)1

",,''::'1' ftl}'::'1!\',:n, ,,'QFaulk, Scott (OST)

,,' ,,-!j' ,1'1,"\, lv'>'\"",

, -" - Monday, November 04, 2013 2:18 PM

l;jiJ nov i 3 J\ '0, s'glenn,okimoto@hawaiLgov'; 'lorettaJuddy@doh.hawaiLgov'; 'steve_prokop@nps.gov';

iU' • 'F'ord.Fuchigami@hawaiLgov'; 'webmaster@hawaiLgov'; 'airmaui@hawaiLgov';

'len na_aoki@schatz,senate.gov'

'Richard Schuman'; 'Tim Sieber'; 'Hansen@mokulelehawaiLcom';

daniel@boutiqueair.com

Soliciting Comments on EASProposals at Kalaupapa, Hawaii - Due November 29, 2013

Makani KaLpdf; Mokulele.pdf; SeaPort. pdf; Boutique Air.pdf

Greetings All:

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service ("EAS") situation at Kalaupapa and give you an

opportunity to submit any comments if you wish. As you may know, the Department of Transportation issued

Order 2013-10-3, on October 4, 2013, to solicit proposals from all interested air carriers to provide EAS at

Kalaupapa for a new contract, beginning January 1,2014. Those proposals were due no later than October 31,

2013.

In response to that Order, we received four proposals, which are attached to this email and may also be accessed

online through the Federal Dockets Management System by clicking on the following links:

• For Makani Kai: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2000-6773-0126;

• For Mokulele Airlines: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT -OST -2000-6773-0127;

• For SeaPort Airlines: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT -OST -2000-6773-0128;

and

• For Boutique Air: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2000-6773-0129.

I want to give you an opportunity to submit any formal comments for the record before submitting a

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We request that you submit

any comments you may have as soon as possible, but in any case no later than November 29,2013. We will

carefully consider your comments before submitting a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a

decision. If you have any questions or if you find that you need additional time to draft your comments, please

let me know.

Please send your comments to the Department at the following email address: EAS@dot.gov or by fax to 202-

366-7838. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at scott.faulk@dot.gov or 202-366-9967.

Sincerely,

Scott Faulk

Transportation Iridustry Analyst

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

202-366-9721

1
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com September 9, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Green Drone Inspections, LLC Exemption Request

Under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization

and Reform Act of 2012 , 4 9 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or M adam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA)

, 49

U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Green Drone Inspections, LLC

. , an aerial video

and photography service company and operator of small Unmanned Aircraft System s

( s UAS), seeks an exemption from the following listed Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

to allow commercial operatio n of the DJI Phantom Series

, Leptron RDASS

, Yuneec Q500

, and the Sensefly eBee within the National Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low

- risk,

aerial photography and survey, data collection for industrial inspections i ncluding pipe

line, power lines, wind turbines, solar farms, flare stack, and offshore platforms, and first

responder/emergency management

.

Green Drone Inspections

, in the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the

requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 14 C.F.R. 45.23 (b),14 C.F.R. 61.23, 14 C.F.R . 61.101

(e)(4) &(5),14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) and (b), 14 C.F.R. 61.315(a), 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a), 14

C.F.R. 91.105, 14 C.F.R. 91.119(c), 14 C.F.R. 91.121, 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) (b), 14

C.F.R. 91.405(a), 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1), 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 14 C.F.R.

91.417(a) and (b).

Green Drone Inspections has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its

petition because it would not set a ny precedent and because the relief requested is

identical to numerous exemptions granted previously. 14 C.F.R. § 11.87

.

In addition, Green Drone Inspections will be utilizing the s ame DJI Phantom Series,

Leptron RDASS, Yuneec Q500, and the Sensefly eBee pr oven technologies the FAA has

already accepted and approved for numerous other exemptions

. Combined, th e

comp rehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has already given toUASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com Green Drone Inspection ’ s chosen products and th e technology, should provide the

support necessary to the FAA for a S ummary G rant of Green Drone Inspection ’ s Section

333 Petition and expedite the process.

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.

CC:

Bill Crozier

Jo e Morra

Jake Troutman

Dean Griffith, Esq.

Robert Papas
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/24/2010 03:52 PM

Subject: VI Letter to EPA on Seasonality of PVC Production

Dear Ms. Howard,

The VI has made prior comments on the potential bias that seasonal

production rates may introduce into the PVC MACT rulemaking. The

attached letter documents some of those periods of seasonal production

for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any

questions regarding the information or its impact on the survey

responses. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this document for

the PVC rule development.

Regards,

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI Letter to EPA on

Resin Seasonality 09-24-10.pdf)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Duke Capital Corporation ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
B. Priory, Chairman of the Board and President of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

              (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

              (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Richard B. Priory

Richard B. Priory
Chairman of the Board and President
August 14, 2002
---

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 Annual Report of Dorato Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anton J. Drescher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



2)

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





By:

/s/Anton J. Drescher

Anton J. Drescher,

Chief Executive Officer



July 29, 2008





---
No. 60726.

#### Boroff-Norman Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 274510-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that items No. 2401 and 34120 are not in chief value of yarns, but are in chief value of ramie, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.