alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30760]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME:  Friday, December 8, 2000, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, N.W., Room 
540, Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS:   

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minute of November 3, 2000 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. Alleged Voting Improprieties During the Presidential Election
VI. Future Agenda Items
11:00 a.m. Briefing on Crossing Borders: An Examination of Civil 
Rights Issues Raised by Current Immigration Laws, Policies and 
Practices.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: David Aronson, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.

Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-30760 Filed 11-29-00; 11:18 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Open
Solutions Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Louis Hernandez, Jr., Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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; and                               
|
| | (2) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ LOUIS HERNANDEZ, JR.                             
| |                                                      
| | Louis Hernandez, Jr.                                 
| | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
    Officer

March 30, 2004
October 21, 2015

Mr. Mohammad Tomaleh

Pristine Line Productions

9250 Beloit Avenue Unit 305

Bridgeview, IL 60455

Dear Mr. Tomaleh:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

sections of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request posted to the public docket on July 17, 2105, on behalf 

of Pristine Line Production filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2989, but we are unable to 

process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       5,473,753
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,550,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 23,375,476
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,684,985
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,888,289
<LOANS>                                     63,399,703
<ALLOWANCE>                                    595,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,845,113
<DEPOSITS>                                  99,504,489
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,777,677
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            601,671
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,695,345
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,265,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               9,961,276
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,417,724
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,037,497
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,455,221
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,548,888
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,548,888
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,906,333
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  210,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,188,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,159,558
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,159,558
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   792,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.27
<LOANS-NON>                                    320,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    10,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               604,054
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  247,045
<RECOVERIES>                                    28,584
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              595,593
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           595,593
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Executive Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007 of AirNet Systems, 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 officer 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.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    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 officer 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 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; andb.
    
    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.
 Dated: August 14, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bruce D. ParkerPrinted Name: Bruce D. ParkerTitle: Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer and President
 38
#### Eugene CLARK v. STATE.

No. 15346.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 18, 1932.

Jno. It. Francis and P. Y. Myers, tooth of. Houston, for appellant.

O’Brien Stevens, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, both of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMOBE, J.

Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without a statement of facts. There are no bills of exception. We find what purports to be exceptions .to the charge of the court. The nature of the exceptions is such that same cannot be appraised in the absence of the facts to which same mainly relate.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,102
<SECURITIES>                                    40,330
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,444
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,409
<PP&E>                                           9,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,768
<SALES>                                         11,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,590
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,041)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,968)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 6, 2008*

#### LARRY A. TICKLE AND SHARON MARIE TICKLE VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-04-0951)

Claimants appeared *pro se.*

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimants brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when their 1999 Dodge Stratus struck a hole while claimant, Sharon Marie Tickle, was driving on Route 20 in Mercer County. Route 20 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred at approximately 7:15 p.m. on Friday, November 26,2004. Route 20 is a two-lane, paved road with a yellow center line and white edge lines. The posted speed limit is thirty-five miles per hour. At the time of the incident, Ms. Tickle was returning from her father’s house after delivering Thanksgiving dinner to him. As she was driving on Route 20 at approximately thirty-five miles per hour, her vehicle struck a hole on the white edge line that was approximately one foot long and six inches wide. Claimant stated that she was aware that there were holes in the middle of the road, and she drove closer to the white edge line to avoid the holes. Since the hole was located on the white edge line, she was unable to avoid it. In addition, she did not see the hole before her vehicle struck it. Ms. Tickle testified that she travels on this road approximately once every month or two months. As a result of this incident, claimants’ vehicle sustained damage to its tire in the amount of $56.00 and rim in the amount of $292.95. Thus, claimants’ total damages amount to $348.95. Claimants’ insurance deductible at the time of the incident was $200.00.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Route 20. The respondent did not present any witnesses at the *134hearing.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins*v. *Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman*v. *Dep’t. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of *the*opinion that respondent had, at the least, constructive notice of the hole which claimants’ vehicle struck and that the hole presented a hazard to the traveling public. The size of the hole leads the Court to conclude that respondent had notice of this hazardous condition. Thus, the Court finds respondent negligent and claimants may make a recovery for the damage to their vehicle.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to the claimants in the amount of $200.00.

Award of $200.00.
#### GEORGE v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INS. CO.

No. 8261.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 8, 1940.

Grover N. McCormick, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

King, Taylor & King, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on this day to be heard upon the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, and

It appearing to the court from the agreement of counsel that the cases of Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company v. James O. Martin et al., 136 S.W.2d 52, and the National Life & Accident Insurance Company v. Lela George, et al.,1 have been decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee, and that the said cases involve the same questions and facts presented by the appeal in this case and the said decisions of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the cases just mentioned above, are final and are adverse to the contentions of the appellant here, and

It further appearing that the defendant tendered with its answer and cross-bill the sum of $127.06,

It is accordingly ordered and adjudged that complainant’s appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, at the costs of the complainant. And,

The defendant and cross-complainant., having tendered and paid into the hands of the clerk of the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis the sum of $127.06, being the amount paid the defendant and cross-complainant as premiums *on*the said policy sued *on,*and interest on the same,

It is, therefore, further ordered and adjudged that the amount of said tender be applied by the clerk to the payment of the costs of this cause, and all of said amount not necessary to pay the costs of this cause the clerk will pay to G. N. McCormick, attorney of record for the appellant.

All of which is ordered and adjudged.

1

 No opinion for publication.
#### SNOW v. STATE.

No. 20935.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### MURPHY et ux. v. CARTER et al.

No. 3395.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Feb. 16, 1939.

R. F. Roberts, of Beaumont, for plaintiffs in error.

*385Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, of Houston, and M. M. Feagin, of Livingston, for defendants in error.

O’QUINN, Justice.

This suit was brought by plaintiffs in error in the nature of a suit in trespass to try title to certain land in Polk County, Texas, against defendants in error. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was for defendants in error, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The case is before us without a statement of facts, or findings of fact by the court, or bills of exception. In this state of the record we can look only for fundamental error. The court having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and the pleadings being such as to warrant the judgment rendered, we must presume that the judgment is correct. De Garcia v. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W. 275, 277, writ refused; Chickasha Milling Co. v. Crutcher, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W. 355; McDowell v. Fowler, 80 Tex. 587, 16 S.W. 431; 3 Tex. Jur. p. 459, Sec. 325; Id. p. 529, Sec. 373.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1

                             Summary of Compensation
                         Arrangements with Mr. Gerardin

     Mr. Scott Gerardin, an  employee-director,  was made Senior Vice President,
General Counsel,  Assistant  Secretary of the Corporation  effective  January 1,
2005. His salary for 2005 is as follows:

                             Tri City          Tri City
            Name            Bankshares      National Bank           Total

    Scott D. Gerardin       $  5,000           $128,400           $133,400

     In  addition,  officers are eligible to  participate  in the  Corporation's
bonus plan and 2003 stock purchase plan.
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 3.1(b)
                                --------------

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                      OF

                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

The Movie Greats Network, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Nevada, by its president and secretary does hereby certify:

     1. That the board of directors of said corporation at a meeting duly
convened and held on the 29th day of July, 1992, passed a resolution declaring
that the following change and amendment in the articles of incorporation is
advisable.

     RESOLVED that Article I of the Articles of Incorporation of this
     corporation be amended to read as follow: "The name of this corporation is
     The Program Entertainment Group, Inc."

     That the number of shares of the corporation outstanding and entitled to
vote on an amendment to the articles of incorporation is 17,334,984; that the
said change and amendment has been consented to and authorized by the written
consent of stockholders holding at least a majority of each class of stock
outstanding and entitled to vote thereon.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said The Movie Greats Network, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by its president and its secretary and its corporate
seal to be hereto affixed this 30th day of July, 1992.

                                              THE MOVIE GREATS NETWORK, INC.

                                              By: ______________________________
                                                  William D. Morrison, President

                                              By: ______________________________
                                                  Jay J. Shapiro, Secretary

                                      30
<PAGE>

     STATE OF CALIFORNIA        )
                                ) ss:
     COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES      )

     On July ____, 1992 personally appeared before me, a Notary Public, William
D. Morrison and Jay J. Shapiro, who acknowledge that they executed the above
instrument.

                                              ____________________________

                                              (Notary Public)



                                      31