alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Synnott B. Durham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunair Electronics, Inc.;1. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thereport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;3. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   DATE: August 15, 2005     /s/ Synnott B. Durham Synnott B. Durham
**Exhibit 10**

**                                                    ****INDEMNITY AGREEMENT**

                       This Agreement is made as of the 11th day of November 11, 2005 by andbetween TAYLOR DEVICES, INC., a New York corporation having an office at 90Taylor Drive, North Tonawanda, New York 14120-0748 (the "Corporation"), andReginald B. Newman II, an individual residing at 65 Briarhill, Williamsville,New York 14221 ("Indemnitee"), a director of the Corporation.

**                       WHEREAS**, it is essential to theCorporation to retain and attract as directors and officers the most capablepersons available; and

**                       WHEREAS**, it is the policy of theCorporation to indemnify its directors and officers so as to provide them withthe maximum possible protection permitted by law; and

**                       WHEREAS**, Section 722 of theBusiness Corporation Law of New York, under which the Corporation is organized,empowers corporations to indemnify any person serving as a director, officer,employee or agent of the corporation and any person who serves at the request ofthe corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of anothercorporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, or other enterprise, and suchSection 722 specifies that the indemnification set forth therein shall notbe deemed exclusive of any other rights to which those seeking indemnificationmay be entitled under any by-law, agreement, vote of shareholders ordisinterested directors or otherwise; and

**                       WHEREAS**, in order to serve, Indemniteedesires indemnification to the extent of the maximum protection permitted bylaw.

**                       NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of themutual covenants set forth herein, the Corporation and Indemnitee hereby agreeas follows:
#### WHITTAKER v. COMBS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 12, 1952.

D. G. Boleyn, Hazard, for appellant.

Barney W. Baker, W. E. Faulkner and Don A. Ward, Hazard, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

On May 8, 1950, appellant, with others, brought this suit for a division of lands between the heirs of Squire Whittaker and his wife. Among the defendants were a nonresident, two infants over the age of 14 years, and one infant under the age of 14 years. A warning order was issued for the nonresident, and apparently summons was issued against the two older infant defendants. Eight days later appellant moved for the appointment of commissioners. That same day • the court appointed the commissioners, and in the order directed how the land should be divided.

On June 15, the commissioners filed their report. Thereafter “attorneys for defendants” filed exceptions, as did also one of the plaintiffs other than appellant. The court sustained some of the exceptions and ordered the commissioners to make a supplemental report.- Thereafter appellant filed exceptions to that report.

On September 30, one of the plaintiffs moved, to set aside .all of. the orders because necessary parties had not been served *401with process. On that day the court overruled the exceptions of appellant and other plaintiffs and granted an appeal.

This is one of the most confusing records we have had the duty to consider. Apparently the parties, and particularly appellant, were impatient with the orderly procedures prescribed by the Code and undertook to effect a division without properly protecting the rights of the infants and the nonresident defendant. Strangely the premature orders and judgment resulted from proceedings taken by appellant. He is the one who now brings the case here, contending that all of the steps taken were void.

The significant orders in the action were entered before the infants over 14 had been served with summons and before the report of the warning order attorney had been filed. The record fails to show that the statutory guardian of the infant under 14 was either served with summons or entered his appearance. In addition, it appears that summons was not served upon the defendants 10 days before the commencement of the term in which orders were entered, as required by Civil Code of Practice, Section 499, subsection 3.

Clearly the judgment was void as to the infants and the nonresident defendant. In a proceeding for the division of land, a proper judgment cannot be entered unless all of the necessary parties are before the court. The impossibility of making a binding decree under such circumstances makes the judgment ineffective in its entirety, since a valid partition may not be had unless the court has jurisdiction of all of the tenants in common. See Burch-ett v. Clark, 162 Ky. 586, 172 S.W. 1048. See also 68 C.J.S., Partition, § 73.

Since both appellant and appellees jointly and affirmatively participated in the course of proceedings which were clearly invalid, the circuit court should divide the costs between the parties as it deems proper.

The judgment is reversed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-33-000]

Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 79, Second Revised Sheet No. 80 and Fourth Revised Sheet No. 80A, to be effective November 1, 2000.

Questar states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with Order No. 587-L issued June 30, 2000, in Docket No. RM96-1-014, which established November 1, 2000, as the implementation date for interstate pipeline companies to include, in their FERC Gas Tariff, a provision to permit shippers to net and trade imbalances.

Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26689 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.B


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2004, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the "Company") as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Director, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Greg G. Gruber
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Greg G. Gruber
                                           Senior Vice President, Chief
                                           Financial Officer, Treasurer
                                             and Director
                                           (Principal Financial
                                             and Accounting Officer)

                                           August 13, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Good morning Mr. DeVany, 

Gabriel Kimbrell <gkimbrell@pacificwings.com> 

Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:44AM 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

greg@pacificwings.com 

Pacific Wings - MUE .• J- (} 

I would like to advise of Pacific Wings intent to stop unsubsidized scheduled air service to the EAS destination of MUE 

(Kamuela/Waimea-Kohala). We understand that there has to be 90 days' notice and that we may be held in further 

depending on the departments carrier selection process. Our planned last date for scheduled flights is 15th June 2013. 

Please let me know if there is any further information I can provide or assist you with. 

Best regards, 

808-893-0503 (w) I 808-283-5333 (m) I gkimbrell@pacificwings.com 

I?ACI'FiC ·>~~~~~ 

jJ 1Nf-WMI!<I.t0AI~l.l#>li£'i 

1
----

| 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. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | July 31, 2009 | /s/ Gregory M. Bowie                                     |
|--------|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |          | Gregory M. Bowie                                         |
|   |          | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2963 

To provide dollars to the classroom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide dollars to the classroom. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dollars to the Class5 room Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE BY STATES OF FEDERAL 

7 FUNDS PROVIDED FOR ELEMENTARY AND 

8 SECONDARY EDUCATION. 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less 

10 than 95 percent of any Federal funds made available to 

11 a State or State educational agency by the Secretary of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2963 IH

1 Education for a purpose relating to elementary or sec2 ondary education shall be used— 

3 (1) for academic and classroom (or classroom4 related) purposes; or 

5 (2) at the elementary school or secondary school 

6 level. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/ngm_epg0_plc_nus_dmmbtua.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
#### James SPEARS, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1953.

Fritz Krueger, Somerset, for movant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., H. D. Reed, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction for maintaining a common nuisance and imposing a fine of $100.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
#### Claude Wilson GORDON et al., Appellants, v. FORSYTH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1228.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 5, 1976.

Decided Nov. 17, 1976.

Bertram Ervin Brown, II, Winston-Salem, N.C. (James C. Gulick, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellants.

*749Roddey M. Ligón, Jr., Winston-Salem, N.C. (Katherine S. Miller, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Winston-Salem, N.C., on brief), for appellees.

Before CRAVEN, BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Indigent claimants appeal the judgment of the district court upholding the manner in which Forsyth Memorial Hospital, a recipient of Hill-Burton funds, furnishes services to indigents. Under § 603(e) of the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 291c(e), and the regulations thereunder, 42 C.F.R. § 53.111(d), a hospital that provides uncompensated services equal to at least three percent of its operating costs presumptively complies with its assurance to provide a reasonable volume of services to indigents. The statute and regulations, however, do not specify how these funds should be allocated.

The appellants contend that the hospital must provide any services that are medically necessary on a “first come, first served” basis until the funds are depleted. The hospital contends that it may allocate the funds on a priority basis: first, to emergency care, and then, if any funds remain, to urgent medical care, and finally, to elective medical care.

The district court ruled that the hospital’s policy did not violate the statute and the regulations.* We affirm this ruling for the reasons stated by the district court. We add, however, that the law does not mandate the hospital’s present method of priority allocation. Other methods, such as that advocated by the appellants, would also comply.

The district court also denied the claims of the individual plaintiffs for free medical care because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300p-2(c). The parties have stipulated that they have exhausted their administrative remedies pending appeal. Accordingly, without objection by the hospital, we remand these claims to the district court.

The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The hospital shall recover its costs.

*

*Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.,*409 F.Supp. 708 (M.D.N.C.1976).
#### Bevan, Admx., Appellee, v. The Century Realty Co., Appellant.

(No. 28092

Decided April 17, 1940.)

*Mr. John Ruff alo,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Harrington, Huxley & Smith,*for appellant.

*550It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Day, .J., not participating.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      In connection with the quarterly report of Tecumseh Products Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,
James S. Nicholson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
            or 78o(d)); and

      (2)   the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: May 6, 2005                           BY: /s/ JAMES S. NICHOLSON
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 James S. Nicholson
                                                   Vice President, Treasurer and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
#### STOCKWELL v. STATE.

No. 23199.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 24, 1945.

Roger Lewis and Baskett & Parks, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record.-

The statement of facts shows that the house of one T. W. Gibbs was entered bur-glariously and, among other things, several suits of clothes stolen. Soon thereafter ap*875pellant was arrested, and was found wearing one of the stolen suits, with many of the identifying marks thereon cut out, leaving some such marks, doubtless overlooked.

Appellant’s contention, evidenced by the testimony of his sister, is that he had purchased such suit from one who was the thief. The trial court charged the jury upon this proffered defense, and evidently they rejected the same.

The case was submitted to the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence, and we find no objections to the charge in the record.

We think the evidence sufficient. See Sec. 2346, p. 1283, Branch’s Penal Code, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.