alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                    EXHIBIT D
                     DRAW DOWN NOTICE/COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
                        Aquis Communications Group, Inc.


The undersigned hereby certifies, with respect to shares of Common Stock of
Aquis Communication's Group, Inc. (the "Company") issuable in connection with
this Draw Down Notice and Compliance Certificate dated _______________ (the
"Notice"), delivered pursuant to Article V of the Common Stock Purchase
Agreement dated as of April 9, 2000 (the "Agreement"), as follows:

1. The undersigned is the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

2. The representations and warranties of the Company set forth in the Agreement
are true and correct in all material respects as though made on and as of the
date hereof and all SEC Documents are as represented in Section 3.1(f) of the
Agreement.

3. The Company has performed in all material respects all covenants and
agreements to be performed by the Company on or prior to the date of this Put
Notice and has complied in all material respects with all obligations and
conditions contained in the Agreement.

4. The Investment Amount is $__________.

5. The Threshold Price, if any, is $__________.

The undersigned has executed this Certificate this ____ day of _____ , _____.




                                        AQUIS COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.


                                        ------------------------
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 09948

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

09948\09948_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 09948\09948_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09948\09948_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09948\09948_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09948\09948_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09948\09948_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

09948\Certification Statement Plant ID 09948.pdf Plant certification statement

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartA_5-3_Water Balance_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartA_CBI_2-3_Pond Assessment_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartA_Q5-2_Aerial Map_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartC_CBI_3-29_BAConversion Quote_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartD_3-1_Diagram-1_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartD_3-1_Diagram-2_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartD_3-1_Diagram-3_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartD_CBI_2-3_WWTStudy_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\Supplemental Documents\09948_PartD_CBI_5-10_WWT Proposal_Cheswick.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09948\09948_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09948\09948_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

09948\09948_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

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

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
AFS-12-428-E August 13, 2012

Exemption No. 10602 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0618

Mr. Maximus Yaney Titan Aerospace

P.O. Box 87035-1129 Moriarty, NM 87035

Dear Mr. Yaney:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 4, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Titan Aerospace for an exemption from §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption will allow Titan Aerospace to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and registration documents required under part 91.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Titan Aerospace.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 8607 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that it is unnecessary to carry and display the airworthiness, certification, and registration documents in UASs for the operation described by the petitioner. The original intent of the subject regulations was to display the airworthiness and registration documents so they would be easily available to the FAA inspectors and passengers.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No 8607;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 8607 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Titan Aerospace an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow Titan Aerospace to operate a UAS that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and registration documents required under part 91, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the pilot in command of the UAS anytime the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be made available within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement

official.

3. This exemption is not valid for operations outside the United States.

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

468 

KA 15-00001 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY BAIRD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES A. HOBBS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Melchor E.

Castro, A.J.), rendered October 14, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15

[3]), defendant contends that his plea was not knowing and voluntary

because County Court did not conduct the requisite further inquiry

after he negated an essential element of the crime during the plea

colloquy by denying that he threatened the use of a dangerous

instrument. At the outset, we note that defendant’s contention

survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Theall,

109 AD3d 1107, 1107-1108, lv denied 22 NY3d 1159). Nevertheless, even

assuming, arguendo, that his contention falls within the narrow

exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d

662, 666), we conclude that the court “fulfilled its duty to conduct

further inquiry to ensure that the plea was entered knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently” (People v Dash, 74 AD3d 1859, 1860, lv

denied 15 NY3d 892 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lopez, 71

NY2d at 666). Specifically, after the court noted that defendant

appeared to have negated the element in question, defendant conferred

with his attorney and thereafter admitted that he had a box cutter

that was visible outside his pocket, that his hand was inches from the

box cutter, and that he told the victim that he did not want to hurt

her. Those admissions are sufficient to show that defendant

threatened the use of a dangerous instrument, and we therefore

conclude that the court properly accepted the plea (see People v

Lawrence, 118 AD3d 1501, 1502, lv denied 24 NY3d 1220; see also People

v Skinner, 284 AD2d 906, 907; People v Norman, 284 AD2d 933, 933-934,
-2- 468 

KA 15-00001 

lv denied 96 NY2d 905). 

Defendant’s further contention that his plea was coerced by his

attorney also survives his waiver of the right to appeal, but he

failed to preserve it for our review inasmuch as he did not move to

withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see Dash,

74 AD3d at 1859-1860), and we conclude in any event that it is without

merit. 

Entered: May 5, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
SET FORTH
BELOW ARE THE CHANGES TO PARAGRAPH THIRD, SECTION F, SUBPARAGRAPH 5 OF THE
COMPANY’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION. WORDS THAT ARE IN BOLD AND DOUBLE
UNDERLINED WILL BE ADDED AND WORDS THAT ARE CROSSED OUT WILL BE
DELETED





AMENDMENT





OF
THE





CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION





OF





SONESTA
INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION








Paragraph
Third, Section F, Subparagraph 5:





“5.  At
all elections of directors of the Corporation, (i) each stockholder
entitled to vote at such election shall be entitled to one vote per share and stockholders
shall not be entitled to cumulate their votes in the election of directors of
the Corporation, as many votes as shall
equal the number of shares which (except for this provision as to cumulative
voting) he would be entitled to cast for the election of directors with respect
to his shares of stock multiplied by the number of directors to be elected for
whom he has the right to vote and each such stockholder may cast all of such
votes for a single director or may distribute them among the number so to be
voted for, or for any two or more of them, as he may see fit; and (ii) at all such elections the
presence in person or by proxy of the holders of record of stock of the
Corporation entitled to cast one-third of the votes towhich the
holders of all outstanding stock in the aggregate are entitled to cast for the
election of directors shall be necessary to constitute a quorum.”
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4692 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4692

               To suspend temporarily the duty on Fastac.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

    Mr. Graves of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To suspend temporarily the duty on Fastac.

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

SECTION 1. FASTAC.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00         A formulation of   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          A racemate                                                        12/31/2015
                          comprising (S)-a-
                          cyano-3-
                          phenoxybenzyl
                          (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-
                          dichlorovinyl)-
                          2,2-
                          dimethylcycloprop
                          anecarboxylate
                          and (R)-a-cyano-3-
                          phenoxybenzyl
                          (1S,3S)-3-(2,2-
                          dichlorovinyl)-
                          2,2-
                          dimethylcycloprop
                          anecarboxylate
                          (Fastac) (CAS No.
                          of major
                          component 67375-
                          30-8) (provided
                          for in subheading
                          3808.91.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Louisiana - South Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Louisiana - South Onshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves New Field Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | 1      | 0      | 1      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ Nos. 03-51103 and 03-51104

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus RUBEN CASTANEDA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-711-ALL-PRM

__________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In these consolidated appeals, Ruben Castaneda-Martinez (“Castaneda”) challenges his jury -trial conviction and 63-month sentence for illegal re-entry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of his supervised release. We AFFIRM. Castaneda argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the insanity defense. He contends that his illegal re-entry conviction should be vacated and that the2

revocation of his supervised release must also be vacated. The difficulty with this contention is that there is no evidence of a severe mental illness resulting in an inability to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Dr. Briones did testify to a mental illness due to substance abuse joined with an impulsivity and, further, that it was possible for Castaneda to feel that it would be worse to disobey God’s will than man’s law. And Castaneda did testify that he thought that there was no spiritual wrong for him to enter the United States. We determine that this evidence fails to meet the requirement “that a rational jury could conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was unable to appreciate his wrong doing as a result of a severe mental illness.” See United States v. Dixon , 185 F.3d 393, 406 (5th Cir. 1999). Castaneda also raises an Apprendi contention that is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
. We AFFIRM Castaneda’s conviction and sentence, and we AFFIRM the revocation of his supervised release.
EXHIBIT 31.2

 

 

I, E. Lynn Wilkinson, Chief Financial Officer of Omega Flex, Inc., certify that: 

 

1.        I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “registrant”); 

 

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(s) 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. 

 

5.        The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 (if any) 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. 

 

Date: March 31, 2006 

 

/s/ E. Lynn Wilkinson______________________

 

E. Lynn Wilkinson 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 
|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
#### Ex parte SIMMONS.

No. 24834.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1950.

Clegg & Clegg, Huntsville, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator files his application for a writ of habeas corpus requesting his discharge upon a judgment in Cause No. 1823 in the District Court of Comal County, Texas, wherein he was convicted and assessed a term of confinement in the state penitentiary for life.

It appears from the judgment therein that the court decreed that relator should be confined in such penitentiary for life “and not less than two (2) years.” However, it is shown that the verdict of the jury was certain and provided for a punishment of life in such prison. This judgment is not void nor voidable; it merely carries the indeterminate portion of the sentence. If necessary, it can be corrected by proper .order. However, the sentence that relator serves is found to correctly set forth the verdict of the jury, it being for confinement for life, and same then applies the provision of Article 775, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., in making the sentence indeterminate.

Relator does not serve the judgment; he serves the sentence; and in this case .the sentence and judgment are both based upon a proper verdict of the jury.

The cases of Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex. Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286, and Ex parte East, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 833, are not in point herein. The matters in those cases were determined by the trial court, no jury being present, and the verdict of the court, as found only in the judgment, which contained an indeterminate sentence, was indefinite and uncertain as to what the verdict of the court actually was. Not so in this present instance. While this judgment may be subject to correction, if so desired by relator, the same is not void and would still leave relator under a proper sentence to serve a term of not less than two years nor more than life.

The relief prayed for by relator is therefore denied.