alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99(a)
                     [Peters Elworthy & Moore Letterhead]

Noise Cancellation Technologies (Europe) Limited
(formally Noise Cancellation Technologies (UK) Limited)

Auditors' Report to the Shareholders
on the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 1998


We have  audited  the  financial  statements  on pages 4 to 14,  which have been
prepared under the historical  cost  convention and the accounting  policies set
out on page 7.

Respective responsibilities of the directors and auditors

As  described  on page 1 of the  company's  directors  are  responsible  for the
preparation of the financial  statements.  It is our  responsibility  to form an
independent  opinion,  based on our audit, on those statements and to report our
opinion to you.

Basis of Opinion

We conducted  our audit in  accordance  with  Auditing  Standards  issued by the
Auditing  Practices  Board. An audit includes  examination,  on a test basis, of
evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. It
also includes an assessment of the significant  estimates and judgements made by
the directors in the preparation of the financial statements, and of whether the
accounting policies are appropriate to the company's circumstances, consistently
applied and adequately disclosed.

We  planned  and  performed  our  audit  so as to  obtain  all  information  and
explanations  which we consider necessary in order to provide us with sufficient
evidence to give  reasonable  assurance  that the financial  statements are free
from material  misstatement,  whether  caused by fraud,  other  irregularity  or
error.  In forming our  opinion we also  evaluated  the overall  adequacy of the
presentation of the information in the financial statements.

Fundamental Uncertainty

In forming our opinion,  we have considered the adequacy of the disclosures made
in note 1 of the  financial  statements  concerning  the  company's  operational
results  and  financial  position.  In view of the  significance  of the company
continuing to generate  adequate working capital,  and its reliance on continued
financial support from the parent company we consider that it should be drawn to
your attention but our opinion is not qualified in this respect.

Opinion

In our opinion the financial  statements  give a true and fair view of the state
of the  company's  affairs as at 31  December  1998 and of its loss for the year
then ended and have been properly  prepared in accordance with the Companies Act
1985.


/s/ PETERS ELWORTHY & MOORE
Chartered Accountants and
Registered Auditor

CAMBRIDGE
23 February 1999
p.1 

OAR Box 1477 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

14) I I-J-5 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/31/2008 11:18:29 AM Sheet 14 of 36 
P.2 

lr*' S f\7"P52, 

ir-7-5 

From: KEITH BARNETT 

To: RTPMAINHUB.Internet."altec01@earthlink.net", RTPMA. .. 

Date: 1/3/00 3:14pm 

Subject: Costs for the Reinforced Plastics Composites MACT 

To the Small Entity Owners/Operators: 

I made one change to the table of existing source floors I sent previously. 

This change is that I am assuming that flow coaters will be used in the 

tooling mechanical resin application category. 

Keith Barnett 

EPA AIR DOCKET 
Table 1. Existing Source MACT Floors For Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting 

Source 

Open Molding 

Centrifugal Casting 

Process/Product Groupings 

Corrosion Resistant (CR) Mechanical Resin 

Application 

Non CR Mechanical Resin ApplicationUnfilled 

Non CR Mechanical Resin Application-Filled 

Manual Resin Application-Tooling 

Mechanical Resin Application-Tooling 

CR Manual Resin Application 

Non CR Manual Resin Application 

CR Filament Winding 

Non CR Filament Winding 

Tooling Gel Coating 

Pigmented Gel Coating 

Clear Production Gel Coating 

NonCR 

CR 

Existing Sources 

MACT Floor 

190 

104 

144 

97 

256 

124 

76 

163 

178 

394 

265 

504 

396 

536 

Required HAP 

Content" 

48.3 and FC 

37.1 and FC 

33.9 

36 

50+% and FC 

40 

32.3 

42 

45 

38 

30 

44 

35.5 

48 

Facility which sets floor

 b 

An Cor Industrial Plastics Inc. (42 and 

50% FC) 

Custom Fiberglass Molding, Inc. 

Hydro Systems, Inc. (42.6 and CF) 

Norton Performance Plastics(47 and 

VB) 

Prestigious Accessories Inc. (43) 

Hartzell Fan, Inc. 

CDR Systems Corp (35 and VB) 

Industrial Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

Water Heater Innovations, Inc.. 

Marble Creations 

U. S. Fiberglass Products Inc. 

Laminated Products Inc 

Henderson, Black & Green Inc. 

Average of Raven and Fibercast 

a

 Represents the HAP content required to meet the point value. Where FC is shown it is assumed 100 flow coaters are also used. 

b

 Where the facility representing the floor meets the point value using a resin/gel coat with a different HAP content than is shown in the previous column, the 

resin HAP content and other controls used at the facility are shown in parenthesis. FC = Flow Coater, VB = Vacuum Bagging, CF = Carbon Filters 

14
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# TF Steel Knight keeps essential supplies moving for Exercise Anakonda

By  1st Lt. Jonathan Lazo and 1st Lt. Julie McCabe39th Tranportation. Battalion (MC), 16th Sustainment Brigade

                DRAWSKO-POMORSKIE TRAINING AREA, Poland  –              *View the article original article on**Army.mil**.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

39th Transportation BattalionTask Force Steel KnightExercise Anakonda 201651st Transportation Company515th Transportation Company66th Transportation Company1st Inland Cargo Transfer Companytransportation
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

Certification of President



I, Ramon Chimelis, President, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Big Sky Industries V, 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 periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(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.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control 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 control over financial reporting.



Dated: February 20, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES A. BIGGINS , Plaintiff Below

Appellant,

v.
JOHN CARNEY , et al. , Defendants Below

Appellee s
. § § § No. 183 , 2017 § § § Court Below : Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C.A. No. K 1 7 C

- 02

- 0 38 § §
O R D E R
This 1 2 th day of July 2017 , it appears to the Court that, on June 7 , 2017, the Court entered an order denying the appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. The a ppellant was ordered to pay the required filing fee by July 7 , 2017 or else his appeal would be dismissed without further notice. Appellant failed to pay the filing fee as ordered; therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) an d 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
#### James A. WILLIAMS, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. EE-480.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 30, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender and T. W. Weeks, III, Lakeland and James A. Williams, Sr., in pro. per., for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOYER, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment adjudicating him guilty of second degree murder.

The assistant public defender representing appellant has filed an “Anders” brief alleging inability to assert in good faith any arguable point of reversible error. The state has filed a similar brief. Appellant; in proper person, has filed a supplemental brief presenting three points for our consideration. We have carefully considered that brief in the light of the record on appeal and find no error.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate error the judgment and sentence appealed are

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21827]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-202-000]

USFG Pipeline Company; Notice of Extension of Time To Comment on 
the Environmental Assessment

August 12, 1997.
    On July 9, 1997, an Environmental Assessment was circulated for 
public comment on the above docketed project. The closing period for 
comments was August 8, 1997. The Office of the Governor of the State of 
Tennessee requested an extension of time to comment on the 
Environmental Assessment. The comment period is herein extended to 
August 22, 1997.
    As stated in the original notice, comments should be addressed to: 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.
    A copy of any comments should also be sent to the Environmental 
Review and Compliance Branch, PR-11.1, at the above address.
Kevin P. Madden,
Director, Office of Pipeline Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-21827 Filed 8-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### ARROW CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. NEWSOM’S DEMOLISHING CO., INC.

No. 9145.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1978.

Writ Refused June 2, 1978.

Patrick C. Kelley, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Jones & Jones, Johnnie A. Jones, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Before STOULIG, BEER and GAUDIN, JJ.

GAUDIN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Arrow Construction Company, Inc., brought this action against Newsome’s Demolishing Company, Inc., for rental of dragline equipment.

Following an adverse district court judgment, Newsome lodged this appeal, contending primarily that the trial judge erred in: (1) allowing Arrow to file a supplemen*96tal and amended petition; and (2) applying a three-year prescriptive period rather than a one-year prescription. We find no merit in these or any other of appellant’s lesser arguments.

Arrow and Newsome entered into a formal contract whereby Arrow would provide a dragline to be used in demolition of a building in Baton Rouge. It was orally agreed that Newsome and not Arrow would furnish the machine’s operator.

Following completion of the demolishing job, there was a concursus proceeding in the 19th Judicial District Court. Arrow tried to enforce its claim but was unsuccessful because, in the opinion of Judge Melvin Shor-tess, it was a charge for rental equipment and expressly excluded from the lien provisions of the Public Contracts statutes.

Subsequently, Arrow filed the instant suit in the Orleans Civil District Court. This was met by Newsome’s exception based on LSA-C.C. Art. 3534, which sets a one-year prescription for wages of workmen, laborers and servants.

The petition stated:

> *.*. petitioner and defendant entered into a construction contract, a copy of which is attached hereto, whereby the petitioner obligated itself to demolish a building . . . ”

Further,

> “Petitioner complied with its part of the obligation and submitted its statement in accordance with ‘dragline statements’ totaling $3,564.20 ...”

The trial judge, perhaps feeling that the petition was somewhat vague, sustained the exception of prescription but he allowed Arrow to amend. This was in direct accord with this State’s longstanding liberality with regard to amendment.

Arrow did file a supplemental petition, stating therein its equipment rental claim in precise terms.

We are of the firm opinion that the trial judge had authority under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 932 to permit the amended petition. Also, the interests of justice were well served. Newsome had defeated Arrow’s claim in the concursus proceeding by arguing that it was for rental of equipment and not for wages; and in Orleans, Newsome was trying to defeat Arrow’s claim by contending that it was for wages and not for dragline rental.

From the pleadings, evidence and testimony, this claim is distinctly for rental equipment, and clearly falls under LSA-C.C. Art. 3538, prescribing after three years. The petition in Orleans, therefore, was timely filed.

A review of the record shows no error, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment at appellant’s cost.

*AFFIRMED.*
Amendment of Agreement, dated September 11, 2007



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 4222 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 200 
 Durham, North Carolina 27703-8466 
 September 11, 2007 
 R. Kim Brazzell, Ph.D., 
 127
Grande Ave 
 Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 
 Re: Amendment of Agreement dated August 2, 2004 
 Dear Kim: 
 I am writing this letter in relation to the Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 2, 2004 by and between you and Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), relating to change in control severance arrangements. As you may recall, the Agreement is automatically extended on an annual basis unless notice is provided at least 6 months prior to the anniversary
of the termination date of the initial one-year term under the Agreement. 
 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company (the “Compensation Committee”) has reviewed the existing change of control agreements between the Company and each of its executive officers and well as current trends relating to change of control arrangements for executive
officers. As part of that review, the Compensation Committee has reviewed change of control arrangements made by other companies and has received input and recommendations from an independent third-party compensation consultant. As a result, the
Compensation Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to prepare and implement a new change in control severance policy to be effective March 29, 2008, which is the date of termination of the
change in control severance agreements between the Company and most of its executive officers. 
 In relation to such plan, the Compensation
Committee intends to inform the other executive officers that their change of control severance agreements will expire on March 29, 2008, in accordance with the terms of their respective agreements. Your Agreement does not expire on
March 29, 2008, but rather on a different timetable associated with the date you initially entered into the Agreement. 
 Notwithstanding Section 2 of the Agreement, the Compensation Committee, on behalf of the Company, requests that you agree to amend the term of the Agreement so that it expires on March 29, 2008. Please acknowledge your agreement
to such amendment by signing and dating this letter in the space provided below. Except as set forth in this letter with respect to the term of the Agreement, the Agreement shall remain in effect in accordance with its terms. 








			
	Sincerely,
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard S. Kent

		 	Richard S. Kent, M.D.,
		 	Chairman, Compensation Committee


 Acknowledged and Agreed: 
  

	
	 /s/ R K Brazzell

	R. Kim Brazzell, Ph.D.

 Dated: September 12, 2007 
 cc: Kenneth B. Lee, Chairman of the Board
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TORULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Annual Report of MesaLaboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven W. Peterson, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18U.S.C. § 1350, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | June 29, 2010      |   | /s/Steven W. Peterson |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Steven W. Peterson      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Busch shares leadership principles, future outlook at Distribution town hall

By Emily TsambirasDLA Distribution

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania  –              DLA Distribution

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA DirectorBetter Buying PowerFinancial StewardhipAudit ReadinessPeople and Culture
#### JACKSON COUNTY, Mississippi v. Alfred E. RUSHING.

No. 50463.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 2, 1978.

Megehee, Brown & Williams, John M. Kinard, Pascagoula, for appellant.

Robert Oswald, Pascagoula, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
No. 00-6622.

#### Lawrence v. North Carolina.

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.