alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
sout h ben d airpor t 

# APPENDI X D : LETTER S O F SUPPOR T
C 3



### CIT Y O F SOUT H BEN D " ^ STEP1!E N J . LUECKE , MAYO R OFFIC E O FTH E MAVO^^g^^ j 24.201 0 Secretar y Ra y LaHoo d Unite d State s Department

o f Transponatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Re : Suppor

t o f th e Sout h Bend Regiona

l Airpor t Applicatio n fo

r Fundin g Unde

r th e Department

o f Transponatio n Smal l Comniunit y Ai r Servic e Development

Progra m Dea r Mr . Secretary : On behal f o f City o f Sout h Bend , I a

mdelighte d to suppor . th e Smal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Grant applicatio n submitte d by th e St . Josep h County Airpor t Authorit y fo r marketin g fiindin g to encourag e anew carrie r to ente r th e Sout h Ben d marke t wit h non-sto p scrv'ic c to Denver , CO . Ai r servic e development

i s important

fo r th e economi c healt

h o f ou r region . Businesse s an d resident s mus t

hav e acces s t

o the globa

l transportatio n s>'ste

ma t affordabl e fares . Sout

h Bend Regiona

l Airport' s importanc e to th e Michian aregio n caimo t b e overstated . Oii

r quaht y o f lif e i s linke d to th e airport' s growt h no w an d i n th e future . Thi s applicatio n i s a

n excellen t

opportunit

y fo r St . Josep h Count

y end Michian at

o leverag e scarc e resource s t o hel p develo p ai

r servic e a t Sout h Ben d Airpor t b y supportin g thi s applicatio n under

th e Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Development

Gran t program . Th e potential benefit

to ou r communit

y i s great . W

e urg e yo u to ftill y fun d th e reques t fromth e Sout

h Ben d Regional Airport . Sincerely , C O >

Stephe n J . Uieck e Mayor CoUNTY-ClT T BUILDtNC • 22 7 W jF.FFETliO N B0UIEVA.^

D • SOUI H DENO . I.'-OIAS A 4600 1 PHON E 574/235-926 1 • FA. X 574/235-989 2

Sout h Ben d Regiona l Airport , Sout h Bend , Indian a Smal l Communit y Ai rServic e Developmen t Progra m Proposa l - 201 0 

### 4 5
Exhibit 10.2


                            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 Fundtech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reuven Ben Menachem,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

Date:  June 11, 2003



                              /s/ Reuven Ben Menachem
                              ------------------------------
                              Reuven Ben Menachem
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              (Principal Executive Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                4289
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       951327
<ALLOWANCES>                                        234543
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    812225
<PP&E>                                              847301
<DEPRECIATION>                                       61545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      685756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              7012797
<BONDS>                                             265000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            913460
<OTHER-SE>                                             (45)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2059954
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1709055
<CGS>                                              2028404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3910261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (79409)<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    589782
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1836723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (65762706)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (65762706)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (6576706)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.74)
        

<FN>
<F1> 
This represents other income such as sublease rent.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Jaffe, Rose & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7475.

Invoice dated London, England, April 29, 1942.

Certified May 12, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 25, 1942.

Entry No. 18035.

(Decided December 11, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State of Connecticut and

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order No. 8243

Modification No.2

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and PSEG Power

Connecticut LLC ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8243 and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual

agreement, further modifY said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-I74-22(d)(l) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are

hereby replaced with May I, 20 IO.

2. Any references to October Ist with respect to the date by which the Respondent shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits ("DERCs") and/or

allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31,2007 and May 31,2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 3I, 2009 and May 3I,

2010.

4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8243 and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent

shall comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-I74-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8243, as modified,

shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127

hltp:/Iwww.cl.gov/dcp

All Equal Opporrllllit.v Employer
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC 2 Trading Agreement and

Order No. 8243

Modification No.2

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC

Signature:~D.~

Name: k"C1~ G4-t"U&lI

Title:Pw.-u-t- YV1=b=\L=--- _

Date:----=± - ,..>:) - D 9

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

C1~ 4· L

Galy/Ros€J

Dir~tor

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau of Air Management

Date

}' :..'>~.
Order entered March 6, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01638
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF H .M. , A CHILD On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 54170
- 2009 

### O RD ER
We GRANT Father’s February 26, 2013 motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 49.1, 49.8. Father’s motion for rehearing is deemed timely filed as of February 26, 2013, the date of filing. As Mother filed a respons e to Father’s motion for rehearing on March 1, 2013, the motion for rehearing will be submitted to the Court without further delay. See id. 10.3(a)

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>

March 3, 2000


U S WEST, Inc.
1801 California Street
Denver, CO  80202


Re: Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999

Gentlemen/Ladies:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

As of January 1, 1999, U S WEST Dex, Inc. (the "Company") changed from the
deferral and amortization method of accounting for directory publishing revenues
and expenses to the "point of publication" method of accounting, which
recognizes revenues and expenses at the time the related directory is published.
According to the management of the Company, the change in methodology was made
to align the Company's revenue and expense recognition policy with the earnings
process and to better reflect the operating activity of the business.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.


Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
No. 48780.

#### Protests 93237-K, etc., of Mattia Locatelli New York Branch, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to the Provolone cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith and following said C. D. 706 and Abstracts 40880 and 41794 it was held to be properly dutiable upon the basis of the net weight of the cheese as returned by the United States weigher, not including the weight of the strings, less 2)4 percent for inedible coverings. Protests sustained to this extent.
## CITYAND BOROUGH OF WRANGELL INCORPORATEDMAY30,2008
P.O. BOX 531 (907)-874-2381 Wrangell,AK99929 FAX (907)-874-3952, January 24, 2013 Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and DomesticAnalysis Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAve., S.E. Washington D.C. 20590 .'....

RE: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova. Yakutat, Gustavas. Petersburg. and WrangellAlaska Docket OST-1998-4899 Dear Mr. DeVany, This letter is to express strong supportforthe selection ofAlaska Airlines to continue to provide essential airservice to our community -Wrangell, AK, and the region ofSoutheastAlaska. Alaska Airlines' current pattern ofservice
- utilizingjet aircraft
- meets crucial needs thatwould be difficult, if not impossible, to meet with any other type of service or aircraft type. Alaska Airlines' connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major communities of interest, with single phase service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan, or Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its marketing relationships with othercarriers. The 737-400 combination ("combi") passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail, and cargo capacity that a nonjet carrier simply cannot provide. Further, the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with Required Navigation performance Technology precision technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach the community. In summary. Alaska's jet service is critical to the economicwell being ofnot only ourcommunity, butthe entire region. For these reasons, on behalf of the citizens and business community of Wrangell, we respectfully urge the Department of Transportation to select Alaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to Southeast Alaska, as the airline has successfully done for well morethan thirty years.

Cc:c Maybrand Borough Assembly, City.and Borough .ofWrangell
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
10Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>           
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         232,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,631,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    63,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,284,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,484,000
<PP&E>                                      18,033,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,978,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,539,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,152,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                     3,641,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,289,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,539,000
<SALES>                                      6,208,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,361,000
<CGS>                                        5,588,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,588,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                142,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0 
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .06
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRIAN DAVID SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 348 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000874 17-AUG-2017 11:37 AM
| **Name                of Subsidiary**                   | **Jurisdiction                of Incorporation/Organization** |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Fundtech                Corporation                     | United                States, State of Delaware               |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Fundtech                U.K. Limited                    | United                Kingdom                                 |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Fundtech                Australia Pty Limited           | Australia                                                     |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Fundtech                International, LLC              | United                States, State of Delaware               |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Biveroni                Batschelet Partners AG          | Switzerland                                                   |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Datasphere                SA                            | Switzerland                                                   |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Cashtech                Solutions India Private Limited | India                                                         |
|                                                    |                                                          |
| Radius                Partners, Inc.                    | United                States, State of Massachusetts          |

----
<SEQUENCE>2
<FILENAME>mcert311-093003.txt                Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Carl E. Midkiff, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Uptowner
Inns, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly
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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiary is
made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly 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 quarterly report
(the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)	presented in this quarterly report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





- 1 -
<PAGE>
       5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors:

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; and


6.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether 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.



	/s/ Carl E. Midkiff
	Chief Executive Officer
	November 12, 2003



















- 2 -
<PAGE>
Order entered August 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00086-CR

DONALD MAYS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-55902-J

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE