alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11(b)
	
	
	        Schedule of Warrants (refinancings) Issued by NCT Group	 Inc. to
	              Carole Salkind and Outstanding As of August 15	 2005
	
	
	   Grant Date      Expiration Date    Exercise Price       Shares Granted
	   ----------      ---------------    --------------       --------------
	    10/02/03          10/02/08            $0.0430              4	000	000
	    10/14/03          10/14/08            $0.0440             19	250	000
	    12/15/03          12/15/08            $0.0370             16	500	000
	    12/31/03          12/31/08            $0.0400             32	250	000
	    03/15/04          03/15/09            $0.0470             96	500	000
	    03/15/04          03/15/09            $0.0470             56	500	000
	    06/15/04          06/15/09            $0.0270             46	000	000
	    06/15/04          06/15/09            $0.0270             27	000	000
	    06/15/04          06/15/09            $0.0270            114	000	000
	    06/16/04          06/16/09            $0.0270              7	750	000
	    06/28/04          06/28/09            $0.0310             72	250	000
	    06/30/04          06/30/09            $0.0310             57	250	000
	    07/16/04          07/16/09            $0.0296            156	000	000
	    08/02/04          08/02/09            $0.0270            223	750	000
	    09/14/04          09/14/09            $0.0200             22	250	000
	    10/21/04          10/21/09            $0.0190              8	000	000
	    11/23/04          11/23/09            $0.0190              8	000	000
	    12/22/04          12/22/09            $0.0166            229	500	000
	    12/22/04          12/22/09            $0.0166             82	500	000
	    12/31/04          12/31/09            $0.0180            147	750	000
	    01/26/05          01/26/10            $0.0172            186	000	000
	    02/09/05          02/09/10            $0.0180            263	250	000
	    02/21/05          02/21/10            $0.0195              7	750	000
	    03/11/05          03/11/10            $0.0180              7	750	000
	    03/23/05          03/23/10            $0.0183             33	000	000
	    04/14/05          04/14/10            $0.0130              7	750	000
	    04/29/05          04/29/10            $0.0120             17	250	000
	    05/18/05          05/18/10            $0.0123              8	250	000
	    06/10/05          06/10/10            $0.0100             24	250	000
	    07/08/05          07/08/10            $0.0120            446	750	000
	    08/01/05          08/01/10            $0.0101            220	000	000
	    08/10/05          08/10/10            $0.0100            307	750	000
	                                                           --------------
	                                                           2	956	750	000
	                                                           ==============
	
	                                  Page 1 of 1
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control

5600 Sand Lake Road Orlando, Florida 32819

- 8907



### Exemption Letter for § 91.203 : Civil Aircraft, Certifications Required

06/23/2015

Renewal Ref: Exemption No. 10326A Regulatory Document # FAA

- 2011

- 0741

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M

- 30 West Building ground floor,

Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC) operate various Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the United States for missions related to research and development, crew training and market surveys. This new technology developed for the Department of D efense, and commercial agencies will contribute to overall public safety. These operations support military and homeland defense, border protection, law enforcement and local disaster relief. LMMFC operations shall meet or exceed equivalent levels of safe ty by use of proven engineering processes and superb quality control.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control ( LMMFC ) opera te various Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the United States for missions related to research and development, crew training and market s urveys. This new technology developed for the Department of Defense, and other public agencies will contribute to overall public safety. These operations support military and public agencies, homeland defense, border protection, law enforcement and local

d isaster relief. LMMFC operations shall meet or exceed equivalent levels of safety by use of proven engineering processes and superb quality control.

LMMFC requests an exemption from 14 CFR 91 .203 to carry and display the certification and registration do cuments onboard the UA. Carrying the airworthiness certificate and aircraft registration in the UA is not practical since there is no pilot onboard the aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be maintained by keeping these documents in or near the Gro und Control Station where it will be available to the pilot and crew at all times.

Please contact me if you require additional information:

6/24/2015



# X Jacob A. Senior

Jacob Senior

Orlando Aviation Consultants (OAC)

Signed by: Jacob Senior (affiliate)
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 354

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the

District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 354

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 354 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL

2 GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW

3 ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

4 On June 7, 2002, or on such other date as the Speak5 er of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

6 Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly des7 ignate, the 2002 District of Columbia Special Olympics

8 Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred

9 to as the ‘‘event’’) may be run through the Capitol

10 Grounds as part of the journey of the Special Olympics

11 torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics sum12 mer games at Gallaudet University in the District of Co13 lumbia.

14 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

15 The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as

16 may be necessary to carry out the event.

17 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA18 TIONS.

19 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

20 for physical preparations for the event.

21 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

22 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce23 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

24 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con25 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations
3

•HCON 354 EH

1 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli2 cable to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6870

WILLIAM A. BREWER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

B. WRIGHT, Senior Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00538-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: October 29, 2013 Decided: November 7, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William A. Brewer seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Brewer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Brewer’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 15, 2006
    
    /s/ Robert B. TothRobert B. TothPresident and Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135136 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135136 

 COA: 272240 
 Wayne CC: 06-004271-01

TREYVEON LANIER WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 8, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8148]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-472 (Third Review)]


Silicon Metal From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
silicon metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun did not participate in this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on November 1, 2011 (76 FR 
67476) and determined on February 6, 2012 that it would conduct an 
expedited review (77 FR 10774, February 23, 2012).
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the 
Secretary of Commerce on March 30, 2012. The views of the Commission 
are contained in USITC Publication 4312 (March 2012), entitled Silicon 
Metal from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-472 (Third Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 30, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-8148 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03567**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 03567\03567_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03567\03567_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 03567\03567_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03567\03567_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03567\Certification Statement Plant ID 03567.pdf Plant certification statement 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED A5-3 WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED D2-3 Slag Pond Study.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED D3-1 Water Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED D4-21 Landfill Final Cover.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_NED F5-6 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03567\Supplemental Documents\03567_WPL's Response to EPA ICR_WPL_091510.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul E. Berger, M.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                             |  |                                                                    
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 11, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    PAUL E. BERGER,
M.D.
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                       |  | Paul E. Berger, M.D.                                               
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                      |  | Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
#### John HEIN v. REAGAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY and Gray & Company, Inc.

No. 86-C-2484.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Hein, John; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA-86-0232; Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 71244.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 301.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019

    Air Force Art Collection





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2021

    Focus on Priorities

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    CSAF Leadership Library    
        CSAF Leadership Library Bookshelf

    2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.25 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR ActOSI Tip Line
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John Bradley TRAHAN.

No. 86-KK-1352.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 29, 1986.

In re Trahan, John Bradley; applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. T86M-1261; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. K86-540.

Denied. See *State v. Henderson,*491 So.2d 647 (La.1986).
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 346

Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Day of Silence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 12, 2002

Mr. ENGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to

the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Day of

Silence.

Whereas the National Day of Silence is a day on which students take a vow to remain silent for a full day in order

to bring attention to the discrimination faced by lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people;

Whereas the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network

(GLSEN), in partnership with the United States Student

Association (USSA), has designated April 10, 2002, as

the National Day of Silence;

Whereas the 2001 National School Climate Survey issued by

GLSEN illustrates the pervasive harassment and victimization of LGBT students;
2

•HCON 346 IH

Whereas 8 out of every 10 LGBT students have been verbally

harassed by their peers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity;

Whereas 4 out of every 10 LGBT students have been physically assaulted by their peers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity;

Whereas 43 States do not have laws protecting lesbian, gay,

and bisexual students from discrimination and harassment at school;

Whereas 48 States do not have laws protecting transgender

students from discrimination and harassment at school;

and

Whereas every child, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be guaranteed an education free from

discrimination and harassment: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) supports the goals and ideals of the Na4 tional Day of Silence;

5 (2) encourages each State to adopt laws to pro6 hibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,

7 and transgender students and school staff;

8 (3) encourages each school district in the

9 United States to adopt policies to prohibit discrimi10 nation against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

11 transgender students and school staff; and

12 (4) requests that the President issue a procla13 mation calling on the people of the United States to
3

•HCON 346 IH

1 observe the National Day of Silence with appropriate

2 ceremonies, programs, and activities.

Æ