alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Don Gilbreath certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of ComCam International, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my 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  

 

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 13, 2007  

 

/s/ Don Gilbreath

| Don Gilbreath |
|---------------|

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.2.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-87749) of AnswerThink Consulting
Group, Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated
August 5, 1998, except as to the pooling of interests which is as of November 5,
1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended
January 2, 1998 of AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc. included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 9, 2000
SERVED: JANUARY 28, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0852 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

~") .,..} •. .r.'.·.,, 0,: ?.~ 2 L "; . -

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. EIR 2010-GL-11-0030) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Reza Soltanian, Respondent's President 

Regent Aerospace Corporation and Airbase Services, Inc. 

28110 West Harrison Parkway, 

Valencia, CA 91355-4109 

TEL: 661-257-3000 

FAX: 661-702-0241 

JohnS. Hoff & Jeffrey Clement, Respondent's Counsel 

Hoff & Herran 

135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603-4134 

TEL: 312-346-8111 

FAX: 312-853-3924 

' Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0852 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
Exhibit
      10.2

    


    Summary
      of Material Compensatory Arrangement between Paperclip Software, Inc. and
      William Weiss

    


    As
      of
      November 6th 2006 Paperclip Software, Inc. (“PCLP”) owed to William Weiss
      $259,000 and to Registry Services Associates (“RSA”)a partnership he was
      associated with $650,000, for back salary and consulting services rendered
      for a
      period of approximately 7 years. With the agreement of Michael Suleski and
      Michael Bridges, the two non-interested members of the Board of Directors,
      Mr.
      Weiss on behalf of himself and RSA, agreed to take stock in PCLP at a price
      of
      $0.35 cents per share for the monies owed with the exception of $25,000. At
      that
      time PCLP was trading at $0.03 cents per share.

    


    
      	
              Name

            	 	
              Money
                owed

            	 	
              Shares
                issued

            	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Registry
                Services Associates

            	 	
              $

            	
              625,500

            	 	 	
              1,787,143

            	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              William
                Weiss

            	 	
              $

            	
              259,000

            	 	 	
              740,000

            	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Total

            	 	
              $

            	
              884,000

            	 	 	
              2,527,143
# C_2014071EN.01003501.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 December 2013 — Pachtitis v Commission

(Case F-49/12)

(Civil Service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/77/06 - Access to documents - Request for access to answers to the admission tests - Annulment of the test results - No interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2014/C 71/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented: initially by P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, and subsequently by P. Giatagantzidis and A. Féréti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, and subsequently by J. Currall and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents)

Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Mr Pachtitis and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Pachtitis and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Data Protection Supervisor, as interveners, shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Data Protection Supervisor, as interveners, shall bear their own respective costs.

---
LISA MARIE DENNIS,

Appellant,

v.

ALLISON E. ALBERT,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3207

__________________________/

Opinion filed September 7, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James H. Daniel, Judge.

Charles Michael Williams of the Law Office of C. Michael Williams, P.A., 

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Jamie L. Ibrahim of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc., Jacksonville; Andrew J. 

Steif of Holland & Knight LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR. 
2
# C_2013071EN.01002903.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/29

---

Action brought on 2 November 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-130/12)

2013/C 71/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to grant the double dependant child allowance under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 4 August 2008, making the applicant’s right to the grant of the double dependant child allowance subject to the condition that ‘all of the specific costs required by the nature of the handicap and remaining chargeable’ to the applicant are higher than EUR 333.19 per month, and the decision of 24 October 2008 of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit, refusing in the present case to grant the double allowance, as confirmed after the reopening of the file by the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 5 December 2011, which was itself confirmed by the decision of 20 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified to the applicant on 23 July 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 4 August 2008, making the applicant’s right to the grant of the double dependant child allowance subject to the condition that ‘all of the specific costs required by the nature of the handicap and remaining chargeable’ to the applicant are higher than EUR 333.19 per month, and the decision of 24 October 2008 of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit, refusing in the present case to grant the double allowance, as confirmed after the reopening of the file by the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 5 December 2011, which was itself confirmed by the decision of 20 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified to the applicant on 23 July 2012;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 5 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM LOGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. FRED PHILS, Medical Director, Sedgwick County Detention Facility; SEDGWICK COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-3402 (D.C. No. 00-CV-3251-GTV)

(Kansas)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , McKAY , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.
William Loggins brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his civil rights were violated when the me dical staff at the Sedgwick-2-

County (Kansas) Detention Facility dispensed medication to him without first performing a physical examination or securing a doc tor’s prescription. Mr. Loggins claims he has suffered significant side eff ects as a result of taking the medication. The district court concluded that Mr. Loggins’ complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and dismissed it pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Because Mr. Loggins is proceedin g pro se, his pleadings are to be liberally construed. Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff retains “the burde n of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Id

. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, an d affirm the district court’s dismissal for substantially the reasons stated in its Order of December 5, 2000. Mr. Loggins states, at most, a claim of medi cal malpractice. While prisons are obligated to provide medical care to their inma tes, Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976), “[m]edical malpractice does no t become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Id . at 106. Mr. Loggins has alleged no facts that evidence the “deliberate indi fference to serious medical needs [that] is necessary in order to have a sembla nce of a § 1983 case.” Daniels-3-

v. Gilbreath , 668 F.2d 477, 482 (10th Cir. 1982). The dismissal by the district court is AFFIRMED . Mr. Loggins is reminded of his continuing obligation to make parti al payments of the docketing fees until they are fully paid.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge
Aug. 13, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones DJI Phantom 3 

This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the DJI 

Phantom 3 multirotor sUAS aircraft to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS 

operations currently covered under Exemption 11842. 

These airframes are commercially available to the general public, as are all components used to 

complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or 

manufacture. 

DJI Innovations Model Phantom 3

Phantom_3_4K_User_Manual_en_1.8.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2008 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report") I,
Gregory H. Laborde,  Principal  Executive  Officer,  President,  Chief Executive
Officer and  Chairman of the Board of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated: November 14, 2008


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  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
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-50936

_____________________

LANSDALE AUTOMOTIVE, INC.;

JAY ALAN LANSDALE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

WILLIAMSON COUNTY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY; ED RICHARDS, in his official capacity

and individually; JOHN CHANDLER, in his official

capacity and individually; MARIO OROZCO, in

his official capacity and individually; JOHN C.

DOERFLER, in his official capacity and individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-99-CV-499-JN)

_________________________________________________________________

June 26, 2000

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having heard oral argument, and based, in addition, upon our

review of the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary

injunction at issue. Of course, in so holding, we do not express

an opinion on the merits of this action, including the underlying
2

statutory issues.

The order denying preliminary injunctive relief, however, also

contains a sentence stating that Appellants’ application for a

permanent injunction is denied as “moot”. In the light of the

absence of any explanation for that statement, or any indication in

the record that the parties or district court intended that

resolution of the merits of the requested permanent injunction be

decided at, or based upon, the preliminary injunction hearing, we

are convinced that the district court did not intend to rule on the

merits of such permanent relief. Accordingly, we regard that

statement as inadvertent or unintended, having no effect on our

jurisdiction to review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

See United States v. Bayshore Associates, Inc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1395

(6th Cir. 1991) (treating order appealed as preliminary injunction

where district court “inartfully” characterized order as permanent

injunction).

AFFIRMED
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > A Short-Term Training Program in an Aircraft Engine Plant

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Barber, Mildred S. (Mildred Sheridan). 						*A Short-Term Training Program in an Aircraft Engine Plant : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 245*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1953,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5516,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Mary A. CULLEN, Appellant, v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (CITY OF PHILADELPHIA).

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 20, 1998.

Decided Nov. 9, 1998.

Julian C. Wessell, III, James P. McNally, Philadelphia, for Mary A. Cullen.

Jonathan F. Ball, Philadelphia, for City of Philadelphia.

David Hawkins, Secretary, for W.C.A.B.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.