alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 20, 2016

Exemption No. 14479A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–5047

Mr. Richard Sidwell

In1View

2267 Big Trail Circle

Reno, NV 89521

Dear Mr. Sidwell:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains 

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions 

and limitations.

By letter dated posted to the public docket on July 21, 2016, you petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of In1View (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for 

an amendment to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 

61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations. You 

requested an amendment to change the company name from In 1 Spot Photography, The 

Sidewell Group to In1View.

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 amendment to the exemption would not set a 

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

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 14479

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained 
2

in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is 

granted an amendment to change the operator name.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

 

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, In1View is hereafter referred to as the operator. All conditions 

and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 14479 remain in effect. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
Before the Third Division,

June 16, 1964

No. 68645.

protest 63/20499 (New York).

#### World Wide Services, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
EXHIBIT 99.1

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1350,
              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 906 OF THE
                       SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Broadband
Communications, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2001, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Mark E. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen A.
Garcia, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Subsection 1350, as adopted pursuant to Subsection 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 result of operations of
the Company.

     Dated October 9, 2002.

                                   UNIVERSAL BROADBAND
                                   COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


                                   By  /s/ Mark E. Ellis
                                     ------------------------------
                                     Mark E. Ellis, President and Chief
                                     Executive Officer



                                   By  /s/ Stephen A. Garcia
                                     ------------------------------
                                     Stephen A. Garcia, Chief
                                     Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2417 LIZA FLOYD, individually and as Representative of the Estate of Marvin Floyd and Mike Floyd, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, its agencies, FarmService Agency (f/k/a Farmer's Home Administration) and Small Business Administration acting on behalf of the United States of America, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-2082-12AJ) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Liza Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parkwood Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in this civil action brought pursuant to the Federal Torts Claim Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2671 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Floyd v. United States , No. CA-96-2082-12AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 1997). 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
No. 59426.

protests 231273-K, etc. (New York).

#### Regal Accessories, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of silk wearing apparel similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

July 5, 1945

No. 50342.

#### Protest 90530-K of Ahronheim & Co. (San Francisco).

Ekwall, Judge:

It is claimed in this case that countervailing duty was illegally assessed, the allegation being that “no bounty, grant, or allowance was made within the meaning of section 303,” Tariff Act of 1930. Upon what merchandise the duty was levied the protest does not state, but from the statements of importer’s counsel, which constituted the entire proceedings when the case was called for hearing at the port of San Francisco, we learn that he had in mind a certain item of 172)4 pounds of rayon specified on the invoice. There has been no evidence introduced in support of the protest, there is no report from the collector stating his official action, and if said collector transmitted any memorandum or other communication to the Assistant Attorney General, such as is contemplated by article 854 (6), Customs Regulations of 1937, in effect at the time of this importation, it is not before the court. Therefore, the protest is before us without any proof whatever in support of the claims made, for which reason it must inevitably be overruled, unless there is some evidence manifest on the face of the papers that the collector has erred.

We have searched the official papers, particularly the invoice, in an attempt to insure the importer of the benefit of whatever evidence is contained in said papers, and find on page 4 of the invoice the following item:

Duty paid on 172)4 lbs Rayon @ 6d. per lb. =£4. 6. 3. Drawback received on 172¡4 lbs Rayon @ l=/per lb.= £8; 12. 6

Other notations on the invoice (the author of which is not disclosed) suggest that countervailing duty was assessed on 172)^ pounds of rayon at 5-69/100 pence per pound or £4-1-10. These notations are checked in red ink and the word “Bounty” is written alongside in red ink, below which appears, also in red ink, “T. D. 47502 (1).”

Counsel for the plaintiff stated at the hearing that it is. his contention' that the invoice, the entry, and the classification of the merchandise show that it was not fabrics as described in said T. D. 47502 (1) but articles and therefore countervailing duty was improperly imposed.

*233Upon this meager record the court cannot find that the countervailing duty was improperly assessed, and it is the opinion of the court that testimony should have been introduced in support of the claims made in the pleadings in order that the plaintiff should prevail.

The protest is therefore overruled for insufficient proof.

Judgment will be rendered for the defendant.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT  TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Lee-Lean Shu, certify that:

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

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: June 4, 2010/s/ LEE-LEAN SHU Lee-Lean Shu President and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of Phoenix India Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
the undersigned’s 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 result of operations of the
Company for the period certified.





Signed on this 3rd day of December, 2008




/s/ Ramesh
    AkellaRamesh
      AkellaPresident, Chief Strategy Officer and
      Director(Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas John Cloud, Jr., Chief Financial and Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of Intrepid Holdings, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b.

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



c.

Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: April 13, 2005



By:

/s/ Thomas John Cloud, Jr.





Thomas John Cloud, Jr.

Chief Financial and Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.3

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 20-F of Crucell N.V. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Domenico Valerio, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Leonard Kruimer, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ Domenico Valerio
| |  | --------------------
| |  | Name:               
| |  | Title:              
| |  | Date:               
| |  | /s/ Leonard Kruimer 
| |  | Name:               
| |  | Title:              
| |  | Date:               

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
Document

Exhibit 10.69
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
BB&T CORPORATION
AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(January 1, 2005 Restatement)
WHEREAS, BB&T Corporation (the “Corporation”) sponsors the BB&T Corporation Amended and Restated Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan for the benefit of certain of its directors nd their beneficiaries, restated effective as of January 1, 2005, to comply with certain statutory requirements (as amended and restated, the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to reflect (i) the corporate merger of SunTrust Banks, Inc. into the Corporation pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between SunTrust Banks, Inc. and BB&T Corporation dated February 7, 2019 (the “Agreement”), and (ii) the name change of the plan sponsor to Truist Financial Corporation, effective as of Closing Date as defined in the Agreement (the “Closing Date”);
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the Closing Date (unless otherwise noted below), as follows:
1.Section 1.1 of the Plan is amended to add the following sentence to the end thereof, to read as follows:
Effective as of the Closing Date, as defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between SunTrust Banks, Inc. and BB&T Corporation dated February 7, 2019 (the “Closing Date”), SunTrust Banks, Inc. will merge with and into the Company, and the Company shall become the Truist Financial Corporation.
2.Section 2.4 of the Plan is amended to add the following sentence to the end thereof, to read as follows:
On or after the Closing Date, all references in the Plan to “BB&T Corporation” and “BB&T” shall instead refer to  “Truist Financial Corporation”, a North Carolina corporation with its principal office at Charlotte, North Carolina, or any 
1








successor thereto by merger, consolidation, or otherwise, and “TFC”, respectively.  
3.Section 2.25 of the Plan is amended in its entirety, to read as follows:
"Plan" means the Truist Financial Corporation Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, an unfunded, non-qualified deferred compensation plan as herein restated or as duly amended from time to time.
Executed on this __6___ day of November, 2019.
BB&T CORPORATION


By: _______/s/ Chris Henson_________________________________________        
Title:  President and Chief Operating Officer
2
Before the Third Division,

November 16, 1959

No. 63520.

protest 58/14290 (New York).

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Fromage Taxi, LLC :

:

v. : No. 203 4 C.D. 20 1 5

: Submitted: June 17 , 20 1 6

Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A . McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: July 11, 2016

The Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority) appeals from an order

of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County reversing the Philadelphia

Parking Authority Tax icab and Limousine Division’s (Hearing O fficer’s) order

granting the Authority’s motion to amend owner citation T

- 16361 against Fromage

Taxi, LLC to include a violation of 52 Pa. Code § 1017.24 because the Hearing

O fficer did not have jurisdiction and authority to amend a citat ion after the citation

was issued.

While this case involves a differe nt citation and different owner, the

underlying facts are the same and the issues are ide ntic al to those we resolved in

Yellow 2000 of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Parking Authority (Pa. Cmwlth., No.

2036 C.D. 2015, filed July 11, 2016 ), w h ere we held that the Hearing Officer did2

have the authority to amend the C itation in those circumstances

. Fo r the same

reasons set fo rth in that opinion, we reverse.

_______________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Fromage Taxi, LLC :

:

v. : No. 2034 C.D. 201 5

: Philadelphia Parking Authority, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11 th day of July , 2016, it is hereby ordered that the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s order dated October 2, 2015

, at

Case No. 01174

, is reversed

, and Fromage Taxi, LLC’s motion to strike portions of

the Philadelphia Parking Authority’s brief is denied

.

_______________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
Case 2:03-cv-06242-RBS Document 8 Filed 07/17/08 Page 1 of 1
|  |
|--|
|  |
|--|
|  |
|--|
|  |
|--|
[Letterhead of Rosenberg Smith & Partners]

Exhibit 23.2


            CONSENT OF ROSENBERG SMITH & PARTNERS, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Numbers 333-116574, 333-113477 and 333-110839) of On the
Go Healthcare, Inc. with respect to the consolidated financial statements of On
the Go Healthcare, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB/A) for the
year ended July 31, 2003.




/s/Rosenberg Smith & Partners
-----------------------------
Rosenberg Smith & Partners
Chartered Accountants
Concord, Ontario November 16, 2004




<PAGE>
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Brian Fiddler, of Hard Creek Nickel
Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Hard Creek Nickel
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2014 (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 Hard
Creek Nickel Corporation.

Dated: November 20, 2015



Brian
FiddlerBrian Fiddler Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
Order entered July 25, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01421 - CV WAL - MART STORES, INC .; WAL - MART STORES E AST, LP; WAL - MART LOUISIANA, LLC; SAM’ S EAST, INC., AND SAM’S WEST, INC. , Appellant s V. XEROX STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC. A/K/ A/, F/K/A ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 15 - 13629



### O RDER Before the C ourt is appellants’ “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants’ Reply Brief

. ” Ap pellant s ’ motion is GRANTED . Appellant s ’ reply brief shall be filed by August 9, 2019. We caution appellant s that further requests for extension of time will be disfavored

. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE