alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NSJ •'':-|V]T : 

NORTH S T A R J E T ' i ..> O 

2-14-2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

RoomW12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom it May Concern: 

NorthstarJet Inc. herby petitions for exemption from Part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) to allow Northstar Jet, to cover it's safety sensitive employees under one 

drug and alcohol testing program. 

Northstar Jet operates a 14 CFR part 145 Certificated Repair Station (Cert. # NTBR 983G), and 

holds a LOA (LOA # P2VJR172) for sightseeing operations. 

Due to the small number of employees (9) between the repair station and the sightseeing 

operation, NorthstarJet is faced with an unnecessary financial hardship in meeting the required 

two separate testing programs as one would provide the same necessary level of safety, while 

reducing cost and unnecessary paperwork. 

The public would be benefited by reduction of redundant administrative burden as a whole. 

Similar exemptions have been issued for small companies such as ours, where many types of 

functions are combined due to small markets and financial constraints. 

Respectfully s 

Kynan Sp( thman 

General Manager 

Kynan@northstarmso.com 

NorthstarJet Inc. 

1 Corporate Way 

Missoula, MT 59808 

Phone--(406) 721-8886 

Fax- (406) 721-8828
1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-4227

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Michael R. Pope, * Southern District of Iowa * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: November 2, 2000 Filed: November 8, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael R. Pope appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Southern District of Iowa upon his guilty plea to making a false statement to a financial institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. The district court sentenced him to 3 months imprisonment and 3 months home confinement. For reversal, appellant argues the district court erred in-2-

increasing his base offense level for having caused a loss of $35,116.50, see U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(E) (4-level increase for $20,000-$40,000 loss), because his bankruptcy estate contents are “assets pledged to secure the loan” which should be offset against the balance of the loan pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.8(b)). Note 8(b) reads as follows:

In fraudulent loan application cases . . . , the loss is the actual loss to the victim (or if the loss has not yet come about, the expected loss). For example, if a defendant fraudulently obtains a loan by misrepresenting the value of his assets, the loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the time the offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lending institution has recovered (or can expect to recover) from any assets pledged to secure the loan. However, where the intended loss is greater than the actual loss, the intended loss is to be used. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We find no error in the district court’s actual loss calculation, because the bank, even if it could expect to recover fully from appellant’s bankruptcy estate, cannot expect to recover from assets pledged to secure its loan to appellant. See United States v. Oligmueller , 198 F.3d 669, 671 (8th Cir. 1999) (reviewing district court’s interpretation and application of Guidelines de novo and its amount-of-loss determination for clear error). See generally 11 U.S.C. § 507 (priorities in bankruptcy). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 99-10827

-1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10827 Summary Calendar

ROBERT V. DETOUR, a citizen of California, on behalf of himself and as Co-Administrator of the Claude D. Smith Joint Venture; CLAUDE D. SMITH, a citizen of California, on behalf of himself and as Co-Administrator of the Claude D. Smith Joint Venture,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LEONARD D. MILLER, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CHARLES A. ROBERTS, a citizen of California; BEL-AIR TRUST, a California business trust,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CV-427-A

-------------------- July 5, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert V. Detour and Claude D. Smith appeal the granting

of summary judgment in fav or of the defendants-appellees. They

aver that the district court erred in disregarding the affidavits

offered in support of their opposition to the motion for summary

judgment and erred in failing to consider other evidence in the

record. Appellants also contend that the district court erred in

granting the motion for summary judgment.No. 99-10827

-2-

The district court did not err in refus ing to consider

the affidavit evidence. S ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Nor did the

district court err in failing to consider other evidence in the

record which was not presented to the court in conjunction with the

oppositio n to the motion for summary judgment. Rule 56 does not

impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in

search of evi dence to support a party’s opposition to summary

judgment, especially if the nonmoving party was well aware of the

existence of such evidence. S kotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc.

, 953

F.2d 909, 916 n.7 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1992).

We have reviewed the briefs and the record. The district

court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendantsappellees because, as the record stands, there was no genuine issue

as to any material fact, and the defendants-appellees were entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. C elotex Corp. v. Catrett

, 477 U.S.

317, 322 (1986).

AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2157 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands 

in the Inyo National Forest, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2011 

Mr. MCKEON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National Forest, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES FOR INYO NATIONAL FOREST 

4 LAND EXCHANGE. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT LANDS OUTSIDE

6 BOUNDARIES OF INYO NATIONAL FOREST.—In any land 

7 exchange involving the conveyance of certain National 

8 Forest System land located within the boundaries of Inyo 

9 National Forest in California, as shown on the map titled 

10 ‘‘Federal Parcel’’ and dated June 2011, the Secretary of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2157 IH

1 Agriculture may accept for acquisition in the exchange 

2 certain non-Federal lands in California lying outside the 

3 boundaries of Inyo National Forest, as shown on the maps 

4 titled ‘‘DWP Parcel – Interagency Visitor Center Parcel’’ 

5 and ‘‘DWP Parcel – Town of Bishop Parcel’’ and dated 

6 June 2011, if the Secretary determines that acquisition 

7 of the non-Federal lands is desirable for National Forest 

8 System purposes. 

9 (b) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT; USE.—In an ex10 change described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Agri11 culture may accept a cash equalization payment in excess 

12 of 25 percent. Any such cash equalization payment shall 

13 be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the 

14 United States established by Public Law 90–171 (com15 monly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a) and shall 

16 be made available to the Secretary for the acquisition of 

17 land for addition to the National Forest System. 

18 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec19 tion shall be construed to grant the Secretary of Agri20 culture new land exchange authority. This section modifies 

21 the use of land exchange authorities already available to 

22 the Secretary as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of AGWI NAVIGATION COMPANY. Benjamin HIRSCH et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S. S. CO. et al., Appellees.

No. 441.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 26, 1937.

Charles R. Conway and Victor House, both of New York City (Samuel H. Levinkind, of New' York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston and Burlingham, Veeder, Clark *Lc*Hupper, all of New York City (Oscar R. Houston and Charles A. Van Hagen, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Marc J. Venator, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
Precise Software Solutions, Ltd. (the "Registrant"), certify, to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"), that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained and incorporated by reference in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.


/S/ Marc J. Venator
--------------------------
Name: Marc J. Venator
Date: May 14, 2003
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-14;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports;3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName: Ellen Z. LamaleTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
**Exhibit 3.2**

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT**

**OF THE**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF**

**GREGG APPLIANCES, INC.**

The above corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) existing pursuant to the Indiana BusinessCorporation Law, as amended (the “Act”), desiring to give notice of corporate action effectuating amendment of certain provisions of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, dated as of February 3,2005 (the “Articles of Incorporation”), sets forth the following facts: 

**ARTICLE I**

**NAME AND DATE OF INCORPORATION**

Section 1.01. The name of the Corporation is Gregg Appliances, Inc. 

Section 1.02. The date of incorporation of theCorporation is June 1, 1960. 

**ARTICLE II**

**AMENDMENT**

Section 2.01. The text of Article 5 of the Articles of Incorporation ishereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

“The total number of shares which the Corporation shall have authority to issue isOne Hundred Ten Million (110,000,000) shares, all of which are without par value.” 

Section 2.02. The text of Article 6,Section 6.01 of the Articles of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

“*Designation of Classes,Number and Par Value of Shares*. The shares of authorized capital shall be divided into One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares of Common Stock, without par value, as hereinafter provided (“Common Stock”), and Ten Million(10,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, without par value (“Preferred Stock”), as hereinafter provided.” 

 

-1- 

**ARTICLE III**

**MANNER OF ADOPTION AND VOTE**

The amendment was adopted by the unanimous written consent ofthe Board of Directors of the Corporation on June 14, 2007. The approval of the shareholders of the Corporation was not required pursuant to Indiana Code § 23-1-38-2(4). 

The manner of the adoption of the Articles of Amendment and the vote by which they were adopted constitute full legal compliance with the provisions ofthe Act, the Articles of Incorporation, and the Bylaws of the Corporation. 

***(Signature Page Follows)***

 

-2- 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the undersigned officerexecutes these Articles of Amendment of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, and verifies subject to the penalties of perjury that the facts contained herein are true, this 29th day of June, 2007. 

**GREGG APPLIANCES, INC.**

By: /s/ Donald J.B. Van derWiel                

        Donald J.B. Van der Wiel, 

        Chief Financial Officer 

 

-3- 

This instrument was prepared by Malene T. Prince, Attorney at Law, ICE MILLER LLP, One American Square, Suite 3100,Indianapolis, Indiana 46282-0002. 

 

-4-
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PVH Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zachary Coughlin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


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











Dated:September 7, 2023By:/s/ ZACHARY COUGHLINName:Zachary CoughlinExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERINSTON LORIEN SPENCER, AKA Llewelyn Cole,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 73095

Agency No. A028

- 445

- 915

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Berinston Lorien Spencer , a native and citizen of Jamaica , petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judg e’s decision denying relief under the Co nvention

Against Torture (“C AT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 73095

review for substantial e vidence the agency’s factual findings. S anjaa v. Sessions

,

863 F.3d 1 161 , 1 164 (9th Cir. 20 17 ). We grant the p etition for review and remand

.

In denying Spencer’s deferral of removal under CAT claim, it is unclear

from the record whether the agency considered the risk of torture by actors other

than the individuals who previously attacked Spencer

, where Spencer testi fied that

he will be tortured or killed by anyone who learns of his sexual orien tation in

Jamaica , including the police

, and where there is potentially dispositive record

evidence support ing Spencer’s testimony

. See Cole v. Holder , 659 F.3d 762, 772

(9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]here potentially dispositive testimony and documentary

evidence is submitted, the BIA must give reasoned consideration to that

evidence.”) ; Bromfield v. Mukasey , 543 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2008) (in

evaluating a CAT claim, “ the agency must consider ‘ all evidence relevant to the

possibility of fu ture torture, ’ including the Country Report, which establishes that

gay men are victims of beatings, killings, and other forms of torture. ” (citation

omitted) ) ; see also Madrigal v. Holder , 716 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2013)

(remanding for agency to conside r all evidence in assessing likelihood of torture)

.

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand S pencer ’s CAT claim to the

agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.3 18

- 73095

Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam).

W e do not reach Spencer ’s remaining contention s

. See Recinos De Leon v.

Gonzales , 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Ci r. 2005) (“We may affirm the [agency] only

on grounds set forth in the opinion under review.”).

The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.3 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, David H. Fleischman, Chief Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc.,
certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TradeStation
Group, 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 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
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; and  (c)
    
    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 officers 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
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; and  (b)
    
    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. August 9, 2004
    
    By: /s/ David H. FleischmanDate
    
    David H. Fleischman
Chief Financial Officer,
Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-30-2003

USA v. Terlingo

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket 02-1640

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Terlingo" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 575.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/575
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

Nos. 02-1640, 02-1641 and 02-1642

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DOMENICK TERLINGO, TARA TERLINGO, and 

DOMENICK L. TERLINGO

Domenick Terlingo, Appellant in No. 02-1640

Tara Terlingo, Appellant in No. 02-1641

Domenick L. Terlingo, Appellant in No. 02-1642

___________________________

O R D E R

__________________________

It is hereby O R D E R E D that the opinion entered in the above-entitled

appeals on April 23, 2003 is hereby amended to correct the spelling of the name of 

NiaLena Caravasos, Esquire, which was spelled incorrectly in the listing of counsel for

the appellants. The correct spelling, which appears in this order, is substituted for the

prior erroneous spelling in the opinion.

For the Court,

 /s/ Marcia M. Waldron 

Clerk

Dated: April 30, 2003