alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0042 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-CE-050-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Bondy Tan, certify that:
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Innovative Systems Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2.            Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this quarterly 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls 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.

 

Date: December 13, 2006

 

 

/s/ Bondy Tan

Bondy Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS EXHIBIT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001108630
<NAME>                        TROYDEN CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       25
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            24,984
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            310
<OTHER-SE>                                     (25,269)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         25
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      0
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   (7,774)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,774)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,574)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,574)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)



</TABLE>
[No. 34849.

Department One.

November 27, 1959.]

#### Shannon Hogue *et al., Appellants,*v. The Port of Seattle *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Dore, Cummings, Dubuar*& *Dore,*for appellants.

*Bogle, Bogle & Gates, Edward G. Dobrin, Robert W. Graham,*and *George N. Prince,*for respondent Port of Seattle.

*Charles O. Carroll*and C. *R. Lonergan, Jr.,*for respondents Stacy, Morris, and Tremper.

*The Attorney General*and *Robert F. Hauth, Assistant,*for respondent O’Connell.

*John H. Binns, amicus curiae.*

1

 Reported in 346 P. (2d) 691.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff taxpayers, challenging the constitutionality of Laws of 1957, chapter 265, commenced this action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against (a) the Port of Seattle, (b) the assessor, auditor, and treasurer of King county, who were concerned with the enforcement of the statutes involved, and (c) the attorney general of the state of Washington.

The trial court entered judgment for defendants. On appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed. The county officials were permanently enjoined from performing any official act under the purported authority of Laws of 1957, chapter 265, relating to the levy of a two-mill tax *154on the real and personal property situated within the corporate limits of the Port of Seattle. *Hogue v. Port of Seattle,*54 Wn. (2d) 799, 341 P. (2d) 171 (1959).

The King county officials and the attorney general of the state of Washington have filed exceptions to the taxation of costs against them. Rule on Appeal 55 (2), (3), RCW Vol. 0.

We find these exceptions to be well taken. The county officers were merely nominal parties; they did not participate in either the trial or the appeal. Since the action involved the constitutionality of a statute, it was necessary that the attorney general “. . . be served with a copy of the proceeding . . . ” RCW 7.24.110. On appeal, the attorney general concurred in the brief filed by respondent Port of Seattle.

RCW 7.24.100 provides that in proceedings under the declaratory judgment act “. . . the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just.”

In these circumstances, we deem it equitable and just that no costs be taxed in this court against the assessor, auditor, and treasurer of King county, or the attorney general of the state of Washington.

It is so ordered.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                               |               |
|------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                               |               |
| Dated:  February 8, 2011 | /s/ Jack L. Howard |
|                               | Name:              | Jack L. Howard |
|                               | Title:             | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Accounting Officer) |
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Gary L. Cook, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A-2 of Cognigen Networks, 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 officers 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 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)   Omitted;

(c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and proceduresand 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 
(d)   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 controls over financial reporting.

|Date: |  | October 26, 2007 |  | /s/ Gary L. Cook               
|----- |  | ---------------- |  | -------------------------------
|      |  |                  |  | Gary L. Cook                   
|      |  |                  |  | Title:  Chief Financial Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 659 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 659

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to 
    replace the prohibition on higher State make allowances for the 
 processing of milk with a requirement that the support purchase price 
for milk be reduced if a person collects a State make allowance that is 
higher than the Federal make allowance and the milk is purchased by the 
         Commodity Credit Corporation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 31 (legislative day, March 27), 1995

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to 
    replace the prohibition on higher State make allowances for the 
 processing of milk with a requirement that the support purchase price 
for milk be reduced if a person collects a State make allowance that is 
higher than the Federal make allowance and the milk is purchased by the 
         Commodity Credit Corporation, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MILK MANUFACTURING MARKETING ADJUSTMENT.

    Subsections (a) and (b) of section 102 of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1446e-1) are amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Federal make allowance.--The term `Federal make 
        allowance' means the allowance for the processing of milk that 
        is permitted under a Federal program to establish a Grade A 
        price for manufacturing butter, nonfat dry milk, or cheese.
            ``(2) Person.--The term `person' includes a cooperative.
            ``(3) State make allowance.--The term `State make 
        allowance' means the allowance for the processing of milk that 
        is permitted by a State for manufacturing butter, nonfat dry 
        milk, or cheese.
    ``(b) Milk Manufacturing Marketing Adjustment.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, if a person collects a State make allowance 
that is higher than the Federal make allowance and the milk or product 
of milk that is subject to the allowance is purchased by the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, regardless of the point of sale, the Corporation 
shall reduce the support purchase price for the milk and each product 
of the milk by an amount that is equal to the difference between the 
State make allowance and the Federal make allowance for the milk and 
product, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) theinformation contained in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 4, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: August 6, 2010 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered January 2, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01452 - CV No. 05 - 18 - 01453 - CV IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF B .J. On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . MI - 18 - 03203 and MED - 18 - 80461



### O RDER These appeals involve an order of involuntary civil commitment of appellant and an order to administer psychoactive medication to appellant. We ORDER appellant t o file her briefs in these appeals by January 14, 2019

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Winthrop H. HOPSON, Jr., et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 26, 1965.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., William A. Lamkin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Richard H. Peek, Dept, of Highways, Pa-ducah, for appellant.

Ben B. Wright, Cadiz, for appellees.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Highways, condemned a strip of land across the farm of Winthrop Hopson and wife, between the dwelling and the barn, for an ««limited access highway. The result of the condemnation proceedings was a circuit court judgment awarding damages of $14,000, from which judgment the Commonwealth has appealed.

Over repeated objections the trial court permitted each of the witnesses for the landowners, on direct examination, after stating his estimates of “before” and “after” values, to itemize in detail the “damages” to the farm, putting a price on each item. We have kept saying that this is improper. See Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Stamper, Ky., 345 S.W.2d 640; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Tyree, Ky., 365 S.W.2d 472; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Sherrod, Ky., 367 S.W.2d 844; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Cardinal Hill Nursery, Ky., 380 S.W.2d 249.

We are reversing the judgment because of the error in permitting the witnesses, on direct examination, to put prices on “damage” factors.

For guidance upon another trial we shall comment briefly on three other questions raised on the appeal.

The landowner should not be permitted to testify as to market values unless he qualifies in accordance with the holding in Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Fister, Ky., 373 S.W.2d 720.

*806The matter of damages attributable to severance of the farm should be handled as set forth in Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Burns, Ky., 394 S.W.2d 923 (decided July 2, 1965).

In our opinion the impropriety of putting a special value on the “corner lot” at the intersection of Ky. 1254 with old U.S. 68 was not that there was a duplication of damages, but rather that the loss of the corner lot was due to *relocation*of the highway (a noncompensable factor). Furthermore, it appears that the landowners will have *new*corner lots where new U.S. 68 intersects Ky. 1254.

The judgment is reversed for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
#### W. W. AUTO PARTS, INC., Appellant, v. Matry L. HYAK, Appellee.

No. 13748.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 17, 1961.

*920James M. Fly, Victoria, for appellant.

Tibiletti & Williams, Victoria, for ap-pellee.

POPE, Justice.

W. W. Auto Parts, Inc., as tenant, sued Matry L. Hyak, its landlord, for damages for breach of a lease agreement. The tenant failed to obtain jury findings of damages, and on the landlord’s cross-action, the court rendered judgment against the tenant for unpaid rent in the sum of $4,500. On appeal, the tenant urges that the landlord breached the lease agreement and that the court should have ruled that there was a rescission from and after the breach. In suing for damages, the tenant affirmed the lease agreement and was bound by its rental obligations. Tenant did not plead or seek to prove a cause of action for rescission. It made no mention of that alternative relief in its motion for new trial. The tenant elected to sue for damages and lost its case on the only theory presented to the trial court, and we affirm the judgment. Texas Co. v. Ramsower, Tex.Com.App., 7 S.W.2d 872; Id., Tex.Com.App, 10 S.W.2d 537; Jenkins v. Northwestern Pipe & Supply Co., Tex.Com.App., 299 S.W. 857.

Tenant urges that the jurors discussed and considered the effect of their answers to the special issues. Since the court, without findings, overruled the motion for new trial based on jury misconduct, there is an implied finding that the misconduct did not occur. Monkey Grip Rubber Co. v. Walton, 122 Tex. 185, 53 S.W.2d 770; St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Cole, Tex.Com.App, 14 S.W.2d 1024; Id, Tex.Com.App, 16 S.W.2d 534; Tondre v. Gerloff, Tex.Civ.App, 257 S.W.2d 158. An essential element for this form of misconduct is an agreement among the jurors to achieve the preconceived result. The agreement was not proved. Ford v. Carpenter, 147 Tex. 447, 216 S.W.2d 558; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317, 190 S.W.2d 62; Monkey Grip Rubber Co. v. Walton, supra.

We affirm the judgment.