alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1775** 

STEPHEN K. GILLEY , Debtor

- Appellant ,

v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION , Creditor

– Appellee,
GERALD S. SCHAFER , Trustee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 00916

- WO ; 12

- 11443 ; 12

- 02066 )

Submitted : December 31, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2015

Before MOTZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne K. Small, General Counsel, Michael A. Conley, D eputy General Counsel, Jacob H. Stillman, Solicitor, Tracey A. Hardin, Assistant General Counsel, Morgan Bradylyons,2 Bankruptcy Counsel, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Stephen K. Gilley appeals the district court ’ s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order finding that Gilley’s disgorgement debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(19) (2012) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gilley v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n , No. 1:13

-

cv - 00916

- WO ; 12

- 11443 ; 12

- 02066 (M.D.N.C. June 3, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit
      31.1**





**Coastal
      Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd.**





**Rule
      13a-14 Certification**




I,
      Phillip W. Ware, certify that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed this quarterly report on FORM 10-Q of Coastal Caribbean Oils &
Minerals, Ltd.





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 quarterly 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.  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
      I
      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 me by others within those entities, particularly during the period
      in
      which this report is being prepared;





b)  evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as
      of
      the end of the period covered by this report (the "Evaluation Date");
      and





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





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





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.  I
      have
      indicated in this 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 my most recent evaluation, including any
      corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses.





Date: May
      13,
      2008





/s/
                Phillip W. WarePhillip
                W. WareChief
                Executive Officer,President
                and Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31105]


      

[[Page 63245]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 63246]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 29008; Amendment No. 27-34, 29-41]


Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Technical amendments; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date for the technical 
amendments to the airworthiness standards for normal and transport 
category rotorcraft under CFR parts 27 and 29.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule is effective on November 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary June Bruner, FAA, Forth Worth, 
Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published the technical amendments; 
request for comments in the Federal Register on August 29, 1997 (62 FR 
46172). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. The technical amendments document advised the 
public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a 
written adverse comment or a written notice of intent to submit such an 
adverse comment were received within the comment period, the technical 
amendments would become effective on November 28, 1997. No adverse 
comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that the 
technical amendments will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 21, 1997.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 97-31105 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
|                                         |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                         |  |  |
| SUBSIDIARIES OF GOLUB CAPITAL BDC, INC. |
|                                    |   |   |
| Name                                    |   | Jurisdiction |
| Golub Capital BDC 2010-1 Holdings LLC   |   | Delaware |
| Golub Capital BDC 2010-1 LLC            |   | Delaware |
| Golub Capital BDC CLO 2014 LLC          |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC IV-GP, Inc.                     |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC IV-GP, LLC                      |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC IV, L.P.                        |   | Delaware |
| Golub Capital BDC Funding LLC           |   | Delaware |
| Golub Capital BDC Holdings LLC          |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC V-GP, LLC                       |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC V, L.P.                         |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC VI-GP, LLC                      |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC VI, L.P.                        |   | Delaware |
| GC SBIC IV-GP Inc.                      |   | Delaware |
Exhibit 12.1


INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF


THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Isa Odidi, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Intellipharmaceutics 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.








Date: April 14, 2014





By:
/s/ Isa OdidiIsa Odidi

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Bertha TRICE, Appellant, v. Frank L. TRICE et al., Appellees.

No. 71-874.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1973.

Benjamin Yancey Saxon, Melbourne, for appellant.

Edward M. Jackson, Cocoa, for appellees Frank L. Trice.

PER CURIAM.

The court has carefully considered the record and briefs filed in this appeal. No reversible error is established. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

REED, C. J., WALDEN, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW, M. J., Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000022301
<NAME> COMCAST CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             574
<SECURITIES>                                       207
<RECEIVABLES>                                      508
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (102)
<INVENTORY>                                        339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,682
<PP&E>                                           4,089
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,317)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,446
<BONDS>                                          6,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              507
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                           349
<OTHER-SE>                                         590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,790
<SALES>                                          3,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,520
<CGS>                                            (867)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (3,157)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (92)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (423)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (153)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (45)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (26)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)
<FN>
<F1>loss before income tax expense and other items excludes the effect of
minority interests, net of tax, of $67.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. BUCKRESS LAND CO., a Florida corporation, and Metropolitan Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 70-858, 70-1182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

Albert L. Weintraub, Miami, for appellant.

Herbert Buchwald, Elliot Harris, Miami Beach, Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J„ and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The controversy in the lower court is an outgrowth of prior litigation between these parties, reported in Buckress Land Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.1970, 232 So.2d 384. Following the mandate in the last decision, the matter recurred before the trial court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the County having admitted the bona fides of the agricultural operation of the appellee Buckress.

The two causes below, involving different tax years, were before different trial judges. One entered a final judgment for the amount of taxes paid under the illegal assessment, plus interest at the rate of 6% from the date they were paid under protest; the other trial judge permitted a recovery of that portion of the taxes paid under the illegal assessment but denied interest, notwithstanding that the taxes had been paid under protest. The City of Opa-Locka appealed and assigned error in the trial court’s denying it the right to contest the bona fides of Buckress’ agricultural operation within the City limits, and assigned error in one of the trial courts holding it liable for interest on one of the judgments. Buckress cross-assigned error in the denial of interest in the judgment obtained from the other trial court. The causes were consolidated in this court and, following briefing and oral argument, we affirm the action of the trial courts in the entries of the judgments on the pleadings for the amount of the illegal taxes paid under protest [Buckress Land Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, supra], and affirm that judgment in Case No. 70-858 wherein interest was awarded the taxpayer, and modify the judgment in Case No. 70-1182, wherein interest was denied by including therein a provision permitting interest to *340be recovered by the taxpayer from the funds on hand held by the County to the account of the City of Opa-Locka, upon the authority of Treadway v. Terrell, 117 Fla. 838, 158 So. 512; Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, Fla. 1956, 86 So.2d 812; cf. Simpson v. Merrill, Fla. 1970, 234 So.2d 350.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgments here under review be and they are hereby affirmed as herein-above modified.

Affirmed as modified.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30768]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice 
and Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Rules of 
Practice and Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a 
two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATE: January 8-9, 1998.

TIME: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESS: Fess Parker's Double Tree Hotel, 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard, 
Santa Barbara, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, D.C. 20544, telephone (202) 273-1820.

    Dated: November 18, 1997.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 97-30768 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
August 6, 2015 

Manager, Flight Standards Service 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

The purpose of this packet is to respectfully request an amendment to Exemption No. 12012 in 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1474.

ArgenTech Solutions requests the addition of the following aircraft to our existing Exemption 

No.12012 in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1474. 

The additional aircraft requested is the DJI Spread Wings s1000 multi-rotor. 

ArgenTech Solutions existing safety standards and procedures as outlined in our Flight 

Operation & Procedures Manual (F2500) will continue for the additional aircraft. We will follow 

the recommended Maintenance and operations parameters set forth by DJI. All the statements 

made in our original petition would remain unchanged with the exception of the " DJI Spread 

Wings s1000 " model being added to where the other model is listed. 

The Operations Manual, Maintenance Manual, and the updated specification document have 

been attached for your information. 

Respectfully, 

Marcel Piet 

ArgenTech Solutions 

President of UAS operations 

603-836-0588 X122 | Cell: 207-651-3476 

Email: mpiet@agts.us
257 La. 270

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles Philip NORMAND.

No. 51049.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: Charles Philip Normand applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Application refused. There are no perfected Bills of Exceptions in the record herein. See State v. Foret, 245 La. 70, 156 So.2d 606, and authorities cited.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should not be considered.

TATE, J., concurs in BARHAM, J.’s reasons for not considering the application.

On Application for Writs

BARHAM, Justice,

is of the opinion that the writ should not be considered. Relator has failed to comply with the written rules of this court in his application by simply filing a petition for relief: No part of the trial record, not even the minutes, is made a part of the application. Additionally, relator has failed to comply with a rule which was created jurisprudentially. In *246State v. Foret, 245 La. 70, 156 So.2d 606, this court, analogizing- from State v. Richardson, 220 La. 338, 56 So.2d 568, that perfected bills of exception are required in applications for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in criminal cases, denied the application on the basis of this determination. A second application by the same relator containing perfected bills was refused consideration by this court. See State v. Foret, 245 La. 187, 157 So.2d 733. This is a harsh result, especially when the rule violated is jurisprudential and has never been included in the rules of court or made a requirement under our Code of Criminal Procedure. Our failure to incorporate such a rule in our rules of court and the Legislature’s failure to include it in Louisiana procedural law create unnecessary problems for unaware attorneys. Relator has reserved a bill, and a *refusal to consider*his application at this time would permit a review if that bill is timely perfected in another application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Prior year amounts were reclassified .
Also primary EPS represents basic EPS under new FAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1999             APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                          34,788                  50,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,214                  89,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,821                   1,597
<INVENTORY>                                     65,992                  65,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,856                 216,318
<PP&E>                                         149,792                 120,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,787                  58,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,264                 325,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,520                 101,250
<BONDS>                                          47511                  49,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        83,849                  80,540
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,718                  86,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,567                 325,145
<SALES>                                        135,116                 147,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,116                 147,178
<CGS>                                          101,575                 111,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,575                 111,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,441                  30,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 690                   1,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,751                   4,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,440                   1,667
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,311                   3,236
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,311                   3,236
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20                    0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19                    0.08
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31062]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-32,431]


Shaneco Manufacturing Company a/k/a Amex Manufacturing 
Incorporated, El Paso, Texas; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 
11, 1996, applicable to workers of Shaneco Manufacturing Company 
located in El Paso, Texas. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on July 3, 1996 (61 FR 34875).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers at the 
subject firm produce miscellaneous sewn articles. Findings on review 
show that some of the workers have had their wages reported to the 
Unemployment Insurance tax account of Amex Manufacturing Incorporated. 
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers 
of Shaneco Manufacturing Company who were affected by increased 
imports. Accordingly, the Department is amending the worker 
certification to include the workers of Amex Manufacturing 
Incorporated.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-32,431 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Shaneco Manufacturing Company, also known as Amex 
Manufacturing Incorporated, El Paso, Texas, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after May 23, 1995 through 
June 11, 1998, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of November 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-31062 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M