alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

Of Transportation 

July 30, 2014 

Ms. JoAnn Wolters 

GemAirLLC 

31 Hammer Drive 

Salmon, ID 83467 

Dear Ms. Wolters: 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

We have reviewed the financial information you submitted including the pre-operating and firstyear expense forecasts, and it does not appear that Gem Air has sufficient funds in its name to 

meet the Department's fitness test. While account information for Spirit Air and W&S 

Enterprises, LLC ("W &S") was provided, these accounts are in their company names and no 

information was provided that supports their intent to fund Gem Air. Therefore, if Gem Air 

intends to rely on Spirit Air and W &S' funds, the Department will need to review their financial 

positions. 1 Balance sheets and income statements of Spirit Air and W&S, Gem Air's relevant 

corporation, together with their accompanying explanatory footnotes must be submitted along 

with letters stating that Spirit Air and W &S will provide financial support to Gem Air. 

Additionally, in order for us to continue our review, we ask that you provide an income 

statement and balance sheet ending June 30, 2014, and a current letter from Washington Federal 

Bank confirming funds available to Gem Air ending that same date. 

Please respond fully to this request within 30 days of the date of this letter. You may upload 

your response via the web at www.regulations.gov or you may mail your response to U.S. 

Department of Transportation Dockets, West Building, Ground Floor, W12-140, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590. In either case, your response should be filed in 

Docket DOT-OST-2014-0020. 

Please include a statement signed by a representative of the air carrier [who shall be a principal 

owner, senior officer, or internal counsel of the carrier] indicating that, pursuant to Title 18 

United States Code Section 1001, the information provided in response to this letter is true and 

correct and that the aforementioned individual has not knowingly and willingly falsified, 

concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement in connection with the preparation or filing of the material submitted. 

We consider Spirit Air and W&S as relevant corporations which are defined as any company in which the 

owners have a substantial interest or any organization which has a significant financial or managerial influence on 

the applicant. 
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this letter or 

the requested information, please contact Barbara Snoden of my staff at (202) 366-9721 or via 

email at Barbara.Snoden@dot.gov. 

Ch1 , Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2014-0020 

Mr. Patrick Darling 

POI for Gem Air LLC 

FAA Boise FSDO 

3295 Elder St. Suite 350 

Boise, ID 83705 

2
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Gary Johnson, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of PortalPlayer, 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, inlight 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 financialcondition, 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 ActRules 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter 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 overfinancial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2005
National Grain Center

Tour – Day 2

Grain Inspection Advisory Committee Meeting

September 6, 2018
Domestic Inspection Operations Office

Primary Functions

• Oversees 38 inspection agencies 

• Monitors ~600 Licensed 

Inspectors 

• Provides proficiency/training 

samples

• Proctors tests and licenses 

inspectors 

• Collects Inspection Data 

• Appeal Inspections 

• Grading seminars

*DIOO QAS’s are responsible for knowing all 12 grains under the 

USGSA and all 39 graded commodities under the AMA
Equipment Checktesting

Primary Functions

• Provides training for 

equipment maintenance 

• Maintains master 

equipment

• Provides checktest samples 

• Dockage machines

• Rice dockage/millers

• Test weight apparati

• Barley pearlers

• Precision hand sieves 
Trace Analysis - Mycotoxins

Primary Functions

• Reference method development 

and validation

• Board appeal inspections

• Rapid test kit evaluation

• Inspection monitoring and 

proficiency testing

• Analyses for addressing foreign 

complaints
Trace Analysis - Pesticides

Primary Functions

• Pesticide residue analysis

• Method development and 

validation

• Export surveys

• Applicant testing services

• Analyses for addressing foreign 

complaints 
Biotechnology

Primary Functions

• Investigative support for inadvertent 

releases

• Administer proficiency program

• Rapid test kit verification program

• Development of validated methods 

• Global harmonization of bioengineered 

grain detection methods
Commodities Testing

Primary Functions

• Analysis of quality factors in food aid 

commodities

• Method development and optimization 

for food aid analyses

• Export Survey Program

• Fee for service analyses
Reference Labs

Primary Functions

• Integral components of the official 

inspection system 

• Maintains reference methods for: 

moisture, protein, oil

• Methods used to calibrate field 

instruments

• Participates in survey programs
#### Fred P. ADAMS, dba Fasco and Deseret United Inc., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Lynn NUFFER et al., and First State Bank, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 14281.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 24, 1976.

Ken Chamberlain of Olsen & Chamberlain, Richfield, for First State Bank.

George H. Speciale, Salt Lake City, for Nuffer.

Jack L. Schoenhals, Salt Lake City for Adams.

Grant M. Prisbrey, Salt Lake City, for Deseret.

*182ELLETT, Justice:

This lawsuit was initiated by Mr. Adams for the return of a boat and personal property and damages for the alleged wrongful taking and detention thereof. There is no claim of right for the taking and detention, if any, of personal property other than the boat.

The issue involved herein is the validity of a financing statement given to the appellant bank by the manufacturer of the boat which described it as a “Seaflite 2200 Offshore # D.M.F.A. 0082 M-75L.” The actual number of the boat is D.M.F.A. 0082 M-74L. The underscored numerals indicate the year during which the boat was manufactured. The serial number and description of the engine in the boat is correctly stated in the document.

The trial court gave a partial summary judgment in favor of the respondent on the ground that the “Financing Statement . was defective and the defect was sufficient to defeat the bank’s security interest in the boat

The trial court was in error in holding that the figures showing the year of manufacture invalidated the statement. An excellent article by Professor Boyce is found in 1966 Utah Law Journal at page 52 wherein the law is set out and cases cited. The article states:

> The description of the goods required to be contained in a security agreement need not be so exact as to provide the reader of the instrument with specific knowledge of the property or collateral involved. The code provides that any description of personal property or real estate will be sufficient “whether or not it is specific if it reasonably identifies what is described. [70A-9-110] Thus, the requirement that personal property in the form of goods be described by serial number, or similar identification, is repudiated (1966 opinion, Utah Attorney General, 31).

The general law is also set out in 69 Am.Jur., Secured Transactions, Sec. 394:

> Since the Uniform Commercial Code merely requires only such description as is sufficient to identify reasonably what is described, whether or not it is specific, it follows that the courts generally take a liberal approach to descriptions set forth in a financing statement, particularly where it is difficult to describe the property accurately. Accordingly, it follows that a court will overlook a failure to set forth a detailed description, including the serial number of the collateral, in a financing statement.

The partial summary judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to try the issues relating to the personal property other than the boat. Costs are awarded to the appellant.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CROCKETT, TUCKETT, and MAUGHAN, JJ„ concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VIII

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

Article 119

(ex Article 4 TEC)

(ex Article 4 TEC)

1.   For the purposes set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, the activities of the Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Treaties, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

2.   Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Union, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

3.   These activities of the Member States and the Union shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Bruce Ellsworth, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10 QSB of Boomers Cultural Development, 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 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)

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



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



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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  January 13, 2006





By: /s/ Bruce Ellsworth

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

Bruce Ellsworth

President and CEO
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Room 2642-South, STOP 0268

Washington, DC 20250-0268

August 10, 2017

MEMORANDUM TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

FROM: Miles V. McEvoy 

Deputy Administrator

SUBJECT: Request for recommendation on improving oversight of imported organic 

products

The U.S. Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP) has 

determined that certain shipments of corn and soy, shipped from Turkey, were fraudulently 

labeled as organic. In order to deter additional fraudulent shipments and to protect the integrity 

of the organic system, AMS-NOP has taken a number of actions, outlined in the following 

report: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/OversightofOrganicImports.pdf

AMS is exploring additional measures that could be developed to strengthen the global organic 

control system. 

AMS is requesting that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) provide 

recommendations on improving the oversight and control procedures that are used by AMS, 

certifiers, and operations to verify organic claims for imported organic products. AMS will 

provide information and reports to guide and assist NOSB in this work.
Order entered January 22 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 20
- 00542
- CV CAROLYN WAID, Appellant
V. TARGET CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Cour t at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 00729
- E
ORDER Before the Court is appellee’s January 20, 2021 motion to supplement the reporter’s record. The requested reporter’s record of the May 22, 2020 hearing

wa s filed on January 20 , 2021. Accordingly, we DENY the motion as moot.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barbara Cobbs, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Patsalos, J.), rendered March 24, 1989, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On March 5, 1988, the defendant stabbed a woman to death outside of a bar in Newburgh, New York. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction for manslaughter in the first degree because the People failed to prove that she acted with intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim. We disagree.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence of the defendant’s intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim. Two witnesses testified that the defendant displayed a knife earlier in the evening. The defendant told both witnesses that she was prepared if anyone "messed” with her. The defendant stated to one witness that she would "kill” anyone that "f**ked” with her. All of the witnesses portrayed the defendant as the initial aggressor. One witness heard the defendant tell the victim that she was going to cut her.

The defendant’s claim that she acted in self-defense is totally inconsistent with the evidence. Although the defendant asserted that she was stabbed in the leg by the victim, none of the witnesses saw a weapon in the victim’s hand and a search of the victim’s belongings did not uncover a weapon. A microscopic examination of the defendant’s pants did not reveal any rips or tears.

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit      32**

|                                                                | FIRSTGOLD                CORP. |                                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |                           |                                                                   |   |
| Dated:  June                19,                2007  | By:                            | /s/ SCOTT              DOCKTER                                    |   |
|                                                                |                           | A.                Scott Dockter, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                                |                           |                                                                   |   |
|                                                                |                           |                                                                   |   |
| Dated:  June                19,                2007  | By:                            | /s/              JAMES KLUBER                                          |   |
|                                                                |                           | James              Kluber, Chief Financial Officer                     |   |
|                                                                |                           |                                                                   |   |
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Antonia Bold-de-Haughton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|Date:  April 19, 2006 | /s/ Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Douglas Lake Minerals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
IW-/5*

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 01-14-00031-CR OFFENSE: 1 (Poss Cont Substance)

Joshua J. Holloway v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 182nd District Court

DATE: 01/29/2015 Publish: NO TCCASE#: 1366751

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Joshua J. Holloway v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPELL/\NT^S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: Q3 ll<y/y

CCA#: m -ir

JUDGE: f.tA UM^i^~

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:.

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Briggs &
Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Brenn, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James E. Brenn     
|James E. Brenn         
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 28, 2008        

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.