alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31(d)****RULE13a — 14(a)/15d — 14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Katherine Frazier, Principal Accounting Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Peerless Mfg. Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of thedisclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’sinternal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. 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 auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves managementor other employees who have asignificant role in theregistrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.       /s/ Katherine Frazier Katherine Frazier    Principal Accounting Officer    (Person Performing Function of Chief Financial Officer)    Date: October 28, 2005  
23
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 98-30082 & 98-30083 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES L. KNOX, JR., Defendant-Appellant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JEFFREY LEE CONANT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 97-CR-50044-1 & 97-CR-50044-5

- - - - - - - - - - October 15, 1998 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In these consolidated appeals, James L. Knox, Jr., and Jeffrey Lee Conant appeal, respectively, their sentences for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distributeNos. 98-30082 & 98-30083 -2- cocaine and for conspiracy to posses with intent to distribute cocaine. Conant argues that the district court erred in refusing to depart downwardly from the sentencing guidelines after the Government refused to file a § 5K1.1 motion for a downward departure based on substantial assistance. Because Conant has not made a threshold showing of an unconstitutional motive, the district court lacked the “authority to scrutinize the level of [Conant’s] cooperation and interpose[] [its] own assessment of its value.” United States v. Urbani , 967 F.2d 106, 109 (5th Cir. 1992). Knox argues that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level four points for being a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Knox was an organizer or leader. United States v. Puig-Infante , 19 F.3d 929, 944 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1110 (Third Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on sodium hexametaphosphate from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on February 1 (89 FR 6547, February 1, 2024) and determined on May 6, 2024, that it would conduct an expedited review (89 FR 48443, June 6, 2024).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on September 27, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5549 (September 2024), entitled                     *Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1110 (Third Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 27, 2024.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-22665 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
State of Oregon

40 CFR 52 – Subpart MM

Materials Incorporated by Reference

40 CFR 52.1970(c) and (d)

September 1, 2013

US EPA Region 10

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101
#### PERRY v. STATE.

No. 18054.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1936.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is conspiracy to commit theft of property over the value of $50; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

It was charged in the indictment in substance that appellant entered into a conspiracy with F. E. Hill to steal $92.30 from the State National Bank of Corsicana.

On May 9, 1935, appellant deposited $51 in money to his credit in the State National Bank of Corsicana, and on the same date Hill deposited $50 to his (Hill’s) credit in the First National Bank of Corsicana. The following day appellant and Hill exchanged checks; appellant executing a check on the State National Bank in favor of Hill in the sum of $48.30, and Hill executing a check on the First National Bank in favor of appellant, in the sum of $49.18. On the same day appellant withdrew $15 from his account in the State National Bank and deposited in said bank the check Hill had given him in the sum of $49.18. At the time he deposited said check he withdrew $45, and was preparing to cash a check on his account for $35 when the bank discovered that Hill’s check for $49.18 would not be honored by the First National Bank. On May 9th Hill withdrew $48 from his account in the First National Bank. On May 10th he deposited in said bank the check for $48.30 given him by appellant. On the same date he attempted to withdraw $45. In the meantime the bank had discovered that appellant’s check for $48.30 would not be honored by the State National Bank.

Aside from the check for $48.30 he gave Hill, appellant drew three checks on the State National Bank aggregating $95. If all of said checks had been cashed and the deposit of $51 deducted from the total amount thereof, appellant’s overdraft would have been $44. If said check'for $48.30 should be taken into consideration, the overdraft would have been $92.30. However, the state’s testimony clearly shows that said check for $48.30 would not have been honored by the State National Bank when presented for payment by the First *443National Bank, and that appellant knew such fact. It follows that said check should not be considered in determining the amount of money appellant and Hill intended to secure from the State National Bank, the alleged injured party. The theft of less than $50 is a misdemeanor.' If the conspiracy had been consummated, the State National Bank would have lost not more than $49.18, the amount of the worthless check given by Hill to appellant, and we find no warrant in the evidence for concluding that an agreement had been entered into to steal from said bank a larger, sum of money. It follows that appellant cannot be held guilty of the substantive offense of conspiracy. We quote article 1622, P.C., as follows: "A conspiracy is an agreement entered into between two or more persons to commit a felony.”

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                            THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
             1995 PINKERTON PERFORMANCE AND EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


     The 1995 Pinkerton Performance and Equity Incentive Plan is hereby amended
as of December 11, 1996 to modify Section 2(e) - Definitions as follows:

     1.  For any Award granted prior to December 11, 1996, the definition of
     "Change of Control" appearing in Section 2(e) shall apply.

     2.  For any Award granted on or after December 11, 1996 to persons other
     than those identified on Schedule A hereto, the definition of "Change of
                              ----------                                     
     Control" appearing in Section 2(e) shall be deemed modified to insert at
     the beginning of clauses (iii) and (iv) of the definition, after the words
     "approval by the stockholders of the Company" the words "and the subsequent
     completion".


     IN WITNESS THEREOF, the undersigned authorized officer of Pinkerton's, Inc.
certifies that the foregoing Amendment has been duly approved and adopted by the
Board of Directors as of December 11, 1996.


                                PINKERTON'S, INC.

                                By: /s/ C. Michael Carter
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    C. Michael Carter
                                    Executive Vice President, General
                                    Counsel and Corporate Secretary

<PAGE>
 
                                   Schedule A
                                       to
                             Third Amendment to the
              1995 Pinkerton Performance and Equity Incentive Plan
              ----------------------------------------------------

     Persons for whom modified definition of "Change of Control" for any Award
granted on or after December 11, 1996 does not apply:

     Denis R. Brown

     C. Michael Carter

     James P. McCloskey
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De Jesus VILLEGAS-CODALLOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-3023.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 28, 1976.

Robert L. Grimes (argued), of Grimes & Warwick, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Michael E. Quinton, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued and on the brief), San Diego, Cal., Terry J. Knoepp, U. S. Atty. (on the brief), San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HUFSTEDLER and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and INGRAM,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable William A. Ingram, United States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

*1125PER CURIAM:

Appellant has appealed from an order forfeiting his bail when he failed to appear for his Omnibus Hearing. Appellant fled to Mexico after he was released on bail, and he has been a fugitive ever since.

Under these circumstances, we decline to adjudicate appellant’s case. As the Supreme Court stated in *Molinaro v. New Jersey*(1970) 96 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586: “No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims. In the absence of specific provision to the contrary in the statute under which Molinaro appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), we conclude, in light of the *Smith*[v. *United States,*94 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 32,] and *Bonahan*[v. *Nebraska,*125 U.S. 692, 8 S.Ct. 1390, 31 L.Ed. 854,] decisions, that the Court has the authority to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The dismissal need not await the end of the Term or the expiration of a fixed period of time, but should take place at this time.”

*A fortiori*we should decline to review an order forfeiting bail when the appellant is a fugitive who has and who continues to escape the processes of the court.

Appeal dismissed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID THOMAS FLANAGAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2071 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________) Opinion filed 

### December 14, 2018

. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Tom Barber, Judge. Kim Suzanne Seace of Law Office of Kim Seace, Riverview, for Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

NORTHCUTT, 

### BLACK , and 

### BADALAMENTI , JJ., Concur.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00325

- CR

M ARK W RIGHT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appe al from the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1658302D )

September 7 , 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s Count T hr ee judgment. We affi rm the trial court ’ s Count

One judgment (burglary of a habitation with intent to commi t another felony, namely

aggr avated assault with a deadly weapon)

. The trial court ’ s Count Three judgment is

modified to delete the words “ Yes, not a firearm ” under the heading “ Findings on

Deadly Weapon

. ” It is ordered that the trial court ’ s Count Three judgment is affirmed

as modified.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Exhibit 15.1

			 		

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (file No. 333-209702), and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (file No. 333-207654 and file No. 333-188286) of RedHill Biopharma Ltd. of our report dated February 22, 2017, relating to the financial statements which appears in this Form 20-F.

 

 

 

 

|              |                                                               |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Tel-Aviv, Israel  | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman                                      |
| February 22, 2017 | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)                                |
|              | A member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited |

 

 

 

 

|   |
|--------|
|   |

Kesselman & Kesselman, Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street, Tel-Aviv 68125, Israel,

P.O Box 50005 Tel-Aviv 61500  Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.com/il

----
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12 - 1 40 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 

## Application **to Amend**

**Section 333 Exemption No. 11306**  **Regulatory Docket No. FAA -**  **2014 -**  **1023** April 12 , 2015 **Petitioner:** Hawk Aerial, LLC Kevin J. Gould, CEO 114 Homesteads Rd. Placitas, NM 87043 Cell: 425 - 218 - 3723 Email: kevin.gould@hawkaerial.com Website: www.hawkaerial.com Greetings, By letter from the FAA dated April 8, 2015, an exemption was granted to Hawk Aerial for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014- 1023 . Hawk Aerial hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI Phantom 3 models . Re levant facts and reasoning are:  DJI has anno u nced they will discontinue the Phantom 2 model which was approved in Hawk Arial’s Exemption No. 11306.  Size, weight and performance specification of the DJI Phantom 3 (“P3”) are substantially similar to those of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ (“P2”) in all relevant respects: o Gross weight: P3=1280g; P2=1242g. o Diagonal Size (including propellers): P3=590mm; P2=579m m. o Maximum Ascent Speed: P3=5m/sec; P2=6m/sec. o Maximum Descent Speed: P3=3m/sec; P2=2m/sec. o Vertical Hover Accuracy: P3=+/ - 10cm; P2= +/ - 80cm. o Horizontal Hover Accuracy : P3=+/- 1m; P2=+/ - 2.5m. o Maximum Speed: P3=16m/sec; P2=15m/sec.  The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 11306 apply without modification to this application to include the DJI Phantom 3 model in Exemption No. 11306. Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any a dditional information that is required. Sincerely,

Kevin J. Gould Airman Certificate #2830326 CEO, Hawk Aerial LLC
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

2016 FEDERAL BENEFITS

OPEN SEASON

MORE INFO: www.opm.gov/openseason

ENROLL/CHANGE/CANCEL:

FEHB HEALTH: Use your agency's online enrollment system or contact your human resources office.

FEDVIP DENTAL AND/OR VISION: www.BENEFEDS.com or 1-877-888-3337

FSAFEDS FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT: www.FSAFEDS.com or 1-877-372-3337

Monday Nov. 14 through Monday Dec.12

ings to Consider:

• My family’s health, dental, and vision needs for 2017

• Whether my current plan will be available in 2017

• How my current plan’s benefits and premiums change in 2017

 -If I do nothing, FEHB and FEDVIP enrollments rollover automatically

• Whether the online comparison tools show a better plan for me

• How much money I could save with a flexible spending account

FEHB Health

• Enroll

• Change plan/option

• Cancel enrollment

• Self/Self + One/Self & Family Flexible Spending Accounts

• Enroll

• Reenroll (it’s not automatic!)

• Increase/decrease your election 

 with a new enrollment

FEDVIP Dental & Vision

• Enroll

• Change plan/option

• Cancel enrollment

• Self/Self + One/Self & Family
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

2016 FEDERAL BENEFITS

OPEN SEASON

MORE INFO: www.opm.gov/openseason

ENROLL/CHANGE/CANCEL:

FEHB HEALTH: Use your agency's online enrollment system or contact your human resources office.

FEDVIP DENTAL AND/OR VISION: www.BENEFEDS.com or 1-877-888-3337

FSAFEDS FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT: www.FSAFEDS.com or 1-877-372-3337

Monday Nov. 14 through Monday Dec. 12

ings to Consider:

• My family’s health, dental, and vision needs for 2017

• Whether my current plan will be available in 2017

• How my current plan’s benefits and premiums change in 2017

 -If I do nothing, FEHB and FEDVIP enrollments rollover automatically

• Whether the online comparison tools show a better plan for me

• How much money I could save with a flexible spending account

FEHB Health

• Enroll

• Change plan/option

• Cancel enrollment

• Self/Self + One/Self & Family Flexible Spending Accounts

• Enroll

• Reenroll (it’s not automatic!)

• Increase/decrease your election 

 with a new enrollment

FEDVIP Dental & Vision

• Enroll

• Change plan/option

• Cancel enrollment

• Self/Self + One/Self & Family 
Federal Benets Open Season

Health Dental/Vision Flexible Spending Accounts

Enroll Make Changes Cancel Renew FSA

HAPPENING NOW!

www.opm.gov/openseason
Exhibit
31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;
 (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; and
 (d)
    
    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
  (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.
  By:
    /s/ Vicki J. DuncombVicki J. DuncombVice President and Chief Financial Officer