alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | the      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |
|---------------------------|
| /s/      STEVEN L. WATSON |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
| /s/      JAMES W. BROWN |   |

| Note: | The      certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed      “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that      Section.  Registration Statements or other documents filed with      the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit      by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such      filing. |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6881

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE HARRIS, a/k/a "George", a/k/a Mr. G,

a/k/a "G",

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-88-76-N, CA-95-789-N)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We note that subsequent to the district court's order in

this case, the Supreme Court has held that criminal prosecutions

which follow civil forfeitures are not barred by the Double

Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Ussery, ___ U.S. ___, 64

U.S.L.W. 4565, 4572 (U.S. June 24, 1996) (Nos. 95-345/346).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-88-

76-N; CA-95-789-N (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 1995; May 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project , Carlsbad, Ca. Kerry Siekmann t o : Shaheerah Kelly, Shaheerah Kelly 09/22/2009 04:06 PM

From: Kerry Siekmann <siekmann1@att.net> To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been replied to.

Dear Ms. Kelly
The Final Determination of Compliance has been published by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Due to the San Diego rules there is a glaring omission in the report. N owhere do they measure cumulative air pollution impacts from: 1) The proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project 2) Encina Power Station - Units 4 & 5 (which will continue to run) 3) The I-5 Interstate (which may soon be widened to up to 12 lanes of traffic.) 4) Railroad trains running through the immediate area. 5) The SDG&E service yard.
All of these polluters are adjacent to each other at the Encina site, and the neighborhood of Terramar is directly south of the Encina site. The first three listed sources of pollution are the major polluters but it is important to add all p ollution emitters together when looking at cumulative emissions.
The question is "Who will look at these cumulative effects?" The San Diego Air Pollution Control District has not! Please help us to address this important issue.
Sincerely Kerry Siekmann 5239 El Arbol Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 siekmann 1 @ att

. net 760-438-5611
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,132]


Christina Coat & Suit Corporation, Brooklyn, NY; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on September 25, 2000, in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on behalf of workers at Christina Coat & Suit 
Corporation, Brooklyn, New York.
    The Department of Labor has been unable to locate officials of the 
subject firm in order to obtain the information necessary to issue a 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance. Consequently, further investigation in this case would 
serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of November, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-30618 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 228 (Monday, November 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70741-70742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30103]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Experts' Meeting on Burnup Credit in Phenomena Identification and 
Ranking Table (PIRT)

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a meeting to 
develop a Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) for 
allowing burnup credit in spent fuel shipping casks. PIRTs have been 
used at NRC since 1988, and they provide a structured way to obtain a 
technical understanding that is needed to address certain issues. About 
fifteen of the world's best technical experts are participating in this 
activity, and the experts represent a balance between industry, 
universities, foreign researchers, and regulatory organizations. The 
PIRT activity is addressing technical issues related to burnup credit 
in the criticality safety analyses of PWR spent fuel in transport 
casks.

DATES: December 12-14, 2000, 8:30 am-5:30 pm.

ADDRESSES: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Room (T2B3) 
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
MD.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda will be posted on the NRC 
Web site at www.nrc.gov/RES/meetings.html by December 5, 2000. The 
meeting is open to the public. Attendees will need to obtain a visitor 
badge at the TWFN building lobby, but an escort is not required.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Ebert, SMSAB, Division of 
Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
6501.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November, 2000.

[[Page 70742]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farouk Eltawila,
Acting Director, Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory 
Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 00-30103 Filed 11-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Patrick J. Pedonti, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Not applicable;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  August 14, 2006 /s/ Patrick J. Pedonti   Patrick J. Pedonti   Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Thomas R. Oxenreiter, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    Thomas R. Oxenreiter
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Thomas R. Oxenreiter       
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### RANDOLPH JUNIOR COLLEGE v. ISAACKS.

No. 2001.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

April 19, 1940.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1940.

Eugene Lankford and F. D. Wright, both of Cisco, for appellant.

Isaacks & Lattner, of El Paso, for ap-pellee.

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

This action by the Randolph Junior College, a corporation, against E. Buford Isaacks is essentially one to determine the college’s right to have a judgment recovered by the said Isaacks against plaintiff (in Randolph Junior College v. Isaacks, Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 628) offset by note alleged to have been executed by the said Isaacks and owned by the college, whose authorities did not know of its existence when the former suit was in the course of litigation.

The trial was before the court without a jury, and at the conclusion of the testimony judgment was rendered in favor of Isaacks. The plaintiff appeals.

On request by plaintiff, the trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Among these the court found: “2. Randolph Junior College and Randolph College are, and have been continuously since their respective organizations different corporations. 3. Defendant Randolph Junior College is not now and at no time has it been the owner of the note executed by plaintiff to Randolph College and plead as an offset to the judgment abovei described.” On these and other findings, the trial court concluded that the college was not entitled to offset Isaacks’ judgment with the note, and entered judgment in favor of Isaacks.

In response to the plaintiff’s brief we have carefully considered the record and find the conclusions of fact substantially supported by the testimony. Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
exv10w7



 






Exhibit 10.7




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     The
Employment Agreement made as of the 31st day of December, 2001 by and
between AvalonBay

Communities, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Samuel B. Fuller (“Executive”) is
hereby amended as follows:


Section 7(c)(iii)(B) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said subsection in
its entirety and substituting thereof the following:





     “(B) Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on the
whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under
Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the
provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive;
and”


Section 7(c)(iv) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting subsection II in the
second paragraph thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:





     “II. Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on
the whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under
Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the
provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive.”


Section 7(c)(v) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting subsection (B) thereof in
its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:





     “(B) Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on the
whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under
Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the
provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive;
and”


Section 7(c)(vi) of the Employment Agreement is amended by deleting subsection (B) thereof in its
entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:





     “(B) Continue to pay the premiums then due or thereafter payable on the
whole-life portion of the split-dollar insurance policy referenced under
Section 3(d) in accordance with, and to the extent required by, the
provisions of the Split Dollar Agreement between the Company and Executive;
and


Except as amended herein, the Employment Agreement is hereby confirmed in all
other respects.





     IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is entered into this 31st day of March, 2005.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charlene Rothkopf
 	 
	 	 	Charlene Rothkopf, EVP – Human Resources 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	        	                                                          /s/ Edward M. Schulman
 	 
	 	 	      Edward M. Schulman, 	 
	 	 	      SVP, General Counsel & Secretary 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	                                                          /s/ Samuel B. Fuller
 	 
	 	Executive
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1373

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require merchant mariners’

documents for certain seamen.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1993

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

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require merchant

mariners’ documents for certain seamen.

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

3 SECTION 1. MERCHANT MARINERS’ DOCUMENTS RE4 QUIRED.

5 Section 8701(a) of title 46, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘100’’ and substituting ‘‘5’’;

8 (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘a vessel oper9 ating only on rivers and lakes (except the Great

10 Lakes);’’ and substituting ‘‘a passenger vessel oper-
2

HR 1373 IH

1 ating only on rivers and lakes (except the Great

2 Lakes), or a small passenger vessel, or an

3 uninspected passenger vessel;’’; and

4 (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘a barge (ex5 cept a seagoing barge or a barge to which chapter

6 37 of this title applies);’’ and substituting ‘‘an off7 shore supply vessel that is less than 100 gross

8 tons;’’.

9 SEC. 2. USER FEE EXEMPTION AND PRIVACY OF INFORMA10 TION.

11 (a) The Secretary of Transportation may not collect

12 a fee or charge under section 2110 of title 46, United

13 States Code, for any service related to a merchant mari14 ner’s document required to be obtained under this Act.

15 (b) The Secretary may not make available to a mem16 ber of the public any personal information concerning an

17 individual required to obtain a merchant mariner’s docu18 ment under this Act.

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

20 The amendments made by this Act are effective two

21 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### ROWE v. ROWE.

No. 3719.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

July 7, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 12, 1938.

Allen & Allen, of Dallas, for appellant.

Bromberg, Leftwich, Carrington & Gow-an, of Dallas (Benjamin G. Habberton and W. C. Gowan, both of Dallas, of counsel), for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This is a companion case to Bertha Raub v. Clara Rowe, 119 S.W.2d 190, this day decided by this Court. The only difference in the two cases arises out' of the allegations with .reference to the relationship of the appellant and appellee and the circumstances surrounding appellant’s becoming a passenger in appellee’s car for the purpose of making the .trip from Dallas to Raymondville and return. The second paragraph of the petition in the present case reads as follows:

> “For cause of action herein plaintiff respectfully shows to the Court that heretofore, to-wit, on or about the 17th day of April, 1935, the defendant, Miss Clara Rowe, Miss Edna Rowe and Mrs. Raub, desiring to visit a relative, Ella Thompson, residing in the City of Raymondville, Texas, requested and invited this plaintiff to accompany them. That the defendant, Miss Clara Rowe, Miss Edna Royve and Mrs. Raub were hesitant to make an automobile trip from Dallas to Raymondville, Texas and back by themselves, unaccom-pained by a man; that they are the aunts of this plaintiff and requested that he accompany them upon said journey to the City of Raymondville and return to Dallas to assist them when and upon such occasion as assistance might be necessary, thereby the avoiding of the necessity of the three women making such a journey alone and unaccompanied, and that the plaintiff agreed to accompany his aunts upon the said journey and, particularly the defendant, Clara Rowe.”

The petition does not allege any agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay any part of the expenses of the trip.

The difference noted does not affect the question at issue, and for the reasons stated in the opinion handed down in Raub v. Rowe, supra, the general demurrer to the petition was properly sustained. The judgment of dismissal is therefore affirmed.
Certification

I, Mair Faibish, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Synergy Brands, Inc.;

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

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

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

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 30, 2005

/s/ Mair Faibish
----------------
Mair Faibish
Chief Executive Officer


                                     EX-32