alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION  OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER





In
connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Mission Community Bancorp
(“the Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008, I, Ronald B. Pigeon,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.           This
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date:  March
13, 2009








By:         /s/ Ronald B.
Pigeon


Ronald B. Pigeon


Executive Vice President


and
      Chief Financial Officer
Maveriek

AVIATION GROUP

September 21, 2011

Mr. Martin F. Kay

Principle Operations Inspector

LAS FSDO

7181 Amigo St., Ste. 180

Las Vegas, NV 89119

Dear Mr. Kay,

Maverick Airstar, LLCrequests an exemption from Title 14 CFRPart 93.323 which requires the filing of a

flight plan prior to conducting operations in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and

an exemption from the "LAS FSDOGrand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area Procedures

Manual" chapter 1, section 1.13 page 1-16 which requires a VFR flight plan be filed with an FAA Flight

Service Station prior to conducting a commercial SFRAoperation. Maverick Airstar requests that the

exemptions be granted until the referenced documents are revised or rescinded. Maverick Airstar will

continue to comply with all other requirement of the referenced documents including the quarterly

reporting requirement.

The reasons Maverick Airstar is seeking the exemptions are as follows:

1. The filing of flight plans prior to operation within the GCNP SFRAis required for allocation use

auditing and not for safety of flight or flight locating reasons.

2. Flight locating and flight following is done within the company as per section 4-2 of our General

Operations Manual and is in compliance with FAR Part 135 requirements.

3. Our demonstrated method of quarterly allocation use reporting, verification and audit options

provides for adequate oversight by the responsible agency.

4. The filing of pre-flight flight plans each hour is a duplication of the information contained in the

quarterly GCNP operations reports and is much less accurate as the planned flights often change

after the filing of the report.

5. By not faxing or emailing the hourly flight plans to a FSS,it would lessen the burden on FSS

personnel and allow them to be more effective at their primary tasks of flight following and

disseminating weather information.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and if you have any additional questions, please

contact me by phone: 928-638-2622 or email: shall@flymaverick.com.

Sincerely,

j~41~

Stephen Hall, Director of Operation

Maverick Airstar, LLC

PO Box 3297

Grand Canyon, AZ 86023

MAVERICK HELICOPTERS MAVERICK AIRLINES

GRAND CANYON AIRPORT I-lIGI-lWAY 64 GRAND CANYON, AZ 86023 928.638.2622
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Wayne R. Hellman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation: 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 (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter on the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:October 28, 2005                       /s/ Wayne R. Hellman   Wayne R. Hellman   Chief Executive Officer
#### In re George BLAKE, Debtor. George BLAKE, Plaintiff, v. David M. ZIMBEROFF and Dorothea Zimberoff, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 83 B 10914 (EJR).

Adv. No. 83-6052A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York.

May 4, 1984.

Raymond J. Aab, New York City, for plaintiff.

Morgan, Lewis & Bochius, New York City, for defendants.

Cornelius Blackshear, New York City, U.S. Trustee.

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

EDWARD J. RYAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

On June 22, 1983 George Blake (Blake or debtor) filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code).

Blake commenced an adversary proceeding against David M. Zimberoff and Dorothea Zimberoff (the Zimberoffs) in this court on November 1, 1983.

During December, 1981 the debtor conveyed his right, title and interest in property located at 4527 Orrington Street, Corona del Mar, Orange County, California (subject property) to the defendants for the sum of approximately $611,000.00. Blake alleges in his complaint that he did not receive fair consideration for the property and that such transfer was a “fraudulent conveyance as to then existing and future creditors of the debtor.”

Plaintiff seeks to rescind the sale and either obtain possession of the Zimberoffs’ home or force the Zimberoffs to pay the present market value of the property.

By notice of motion dated January 5, 1984 defendants seek to transfer this adversary proceeding to the Central District *62of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1475 and Bankruptcy Rule 7087.

A review of the facts of this case demonstrates that this matter should be litigated in California for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

The criteria consistently applied in determining the forum offering the greatest convenience are: Proximity of creditors of every kind to the court; proximity to the court of the witnesses necessary to the administration of the estate; location of the assets, and the economic and efficient administration of the estate. *In re Developers of Caguas, Inc.,*26 B.R. 977, 979, 980 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1983), citing *In re Landmark Capital Co.,*19 B.R. 342, 348 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1982), *aff'd sub nom. Landmark Capital Co. v. North Central Development Co.,*20 B.R. 220 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1982).

In the case at hand, the situs of the property is, and virtually all of the witnesses and documentary proof are located in California. In addition, the testimony of expert witnesses and appraisers with respect to the value of the subject property will be critical to the outcome of this proceeding.

The only New York connection with this adversary proceeding is that plaintiff’s counsel resides in New York, and Blake’s Chapter 11 reorganization is in New York.

Clearly, California has the most significant, substantial and direct relationship to this litigation.

Accordingly, the motion to change venue is granted.

It is so ordered.
No. 91-583.

#### Bosworth et al. *v.*Leathers, Commissioner of Revenues of Arkansas, et al.

Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### In re TRANS AIR, INC., f/k/a Trans Island Airways, Inc., Debtor. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. Janice Lee DENT, A.I.M. Investment Corp., and Trans Air, Inc., Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 86-02525-BKC-SMW.

Adv. No. 86-0609-BKC-SMW-A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.

Nov. 24, 1987.

Arthur Neiwirth, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for trustee.

William Stalions, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for James Dent.

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT, FOR AMENDMENT OR ALTERATION OF JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL

SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on November 4, 1987 on a Motion For Additional Findings of Fact, For Amendment or Alteration of Judgment or in the Alternative, For New Trial and with the Court being fully advised in the premises, makes the following clarifications:

Janice Dent moves this Court for a determination that the actual transfer of money occurred on May 6, 1986 when the assignment was perfected and the transfer was completed rather than on January 11, 1986 when she executed the assignment. Dent argues that if the later date is the date of the actual transfer, then she was no longer an insider of the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 101(30)(B)(vi) and the transfer cannot be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 547.

It may be true that if the entire assignment transaction occurred on May 6, 1986 then Dent’s argument would have merit. However, even if Dent is correct and she could not have initially been classified an insider when the assignment was perfected and the transfer completed, she was an insider when the assignment was initiated and the documents were executed. *DeRosa v. Buildex Incorp. and Instrument Systems Corp. (In re F & S Central Manufacturing Corp.),*53 B.R. 842, 13 B.C.D. 823 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1985). *See also Kleinfeld v. University State Bank (In re Davenport)*64 B.R. 411, 414 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1986) and *Pirrone v. Toboroff (In re Vaniman Intern., Inc.),*22 B.R. 166, 189 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1982). Dent would have this Court allow insiders to escape the avoidance provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 547 merely by delaying the date the debtor actually transfers its property. Such a result is not required by the statute. Instead, this Court adopts the reasoning found in the *DeRosa*case and finds that “a creditor who is an insider at the time the transfer of the debtor’s property is arranged is an insider at the time of the transfer.” *DeRosa,*53 B.R. 842, 13 B.C.D. at 826.

Dent executed the assignment documents on January 11, 1986 when she was an insider thereby concluding the arrangements to transfer the money from the debt- *948or to herself. The determination of her insider status became fixed, with regard to this particular transaction, at the point of execution, not at the subsequent perfection date.

Based on the foregoing it is:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Motion for Additional Findings of Fact is granted to the extent of the above stated findings. The Motion for Amendments or Alteration of Judgment or in the Alternative For New Trial is denied.
#### Galenis, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*February 5*

March *5, 1929.*

*314The cause was submitted for the plaintiff in error on the brief of'L. *E. Vandreuil,*attorney, and *Clarence Tennessee*of counsel, both of Kenosha, and for the defendant in error on- that of *John P. McEvoy,*assistant district attorney of Kenosha county, the *Attorney General,*and /. *E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general.

Crownhart, J.

The contention here made in substance is that the evidence does not support the verdict of the jury. There are no claims of error otherwise on the trial. The defendant having been found guilty of a felony, we are mindful of the solemn obligation imposed upon each individual Justice, and we have given the evidence careful consideration. However, we cannot find any reasonable basis for defendant’s assignments of error.

Motive for the crime’ was sufficiently shown; prior intent was shown; the identification of defendant as the guilty party was positively sworn to; the gun he owned was produced and proof made by competent evidence that it was the weapon from which the bullet found in the body of the victim was fired; and the felonious assault by some one is admitted. The defense was an *alibi.*Of this there was no positive proof except the testimony of defendant. The other proof was of a negative character and not strong at that.

We think it is unnecessary to set forth the evidence at length. It fully sustains the verdict of the jury, and the judgment and sentence of the court must be sustained.

*By the Court.*— The judgment and sentence of the circuit court are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


DESCRIPTION OF 2011 SALARIES FOR


NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


 


(Updated and restated as of January 18, 2011)


 


Salaries for executive officers consist of two components: cash, and salary stock units. Salary stock units are credited periodically during the year and are paid in accordance with a written program.


 


Annualized salary rates effective January 1, 2011 for the current executive officers of the Company who are named in the executive compensation disclosures of the Company’s 2010 proxy statement in relation to fiscal year 2009 (“2009 Named Executive Officers”) are:


 



	
             
	
            Officer Name
 	
            Cash Salary
 	
            Salary Stock Units
 
	
             
	
            D. Bryan Jordan
 	
            $800,000
 	
            $320,000
 	
             

	
            William C. (B.J.) Losch III
 	
            400,000
 	
            160,000
 	
             

	
             
	
            Charles G. Burkett
 	
            742,650
 	
            297,050
 	
             

	
             
	
            Charles T. Tuggle, Jr.
 	
            475,000
 	
            190,000
 	
             

														



 


Frank J. Gusmus, Jr. was a 2009 Named Executive Officer but stepped down from his executive officer position starting January 1, 2011 as part of a previously-disclosed retirement process. Mr. Gusmus currently remains employed in a non-executive capacity and is expected to retire completely on March 31, 2011. Salary rates generally continue in effect until they are changed.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Greg Wujek, President and Chief Executive 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; and




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








Date:  May 14, 2009
/s/ Greg WujekGreg WujekPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Thomas B. Littlejohn *v.*Lewis Williams, *Ex’r.*

An equity case cannot be *removed*to the Supreme Court, under the act of 1818, *fRev. ch.*962) when it is only set for argument upon a plea.— In such ease, it can come up no otherwise than by appeal.

The bill was filed in Rowan against *Joseph Williams,*the testator of the defendant, who died in 1817, when the suit abated. A hill of revivor was filed in 1829 against the present defendant, who pleaded in bar of. it. This plea was set down for argument, and in this stage of the cause, it was, by consent, removed to this court.

*Oevereux,*who was for the plaintiff,

suggested that the cause was improperly brought to this court.

*JYask,*for the defendant.

RuevIN, Chief-Justice.

The court has not jurisdiction of a case in the situation of this. The act of 1818 provides for the removal of causes in equity to the Supreme Court in two cases — the one after a decision in the Superior Court,by appeal therefrom — the other before a decision, but not until the cause shall have been set down for hearing. These latter words and the context imply that no case is to be brought here, until it shall have reached that stage, in which it may be heard upon the hill, answer and proofs, and finally disposed of in *381this court, without the necessity of sending it back to be proceeded on for any purpose in the Superior Court.— Accordingly, many cases have been returned without any decree litre, which came up while standing on a demurrer or plea — for upon overruling them, the party is then put to answer, which cannot be done here. If the. demurrer or plea be allowed in the Superior Court, and the bill thereupon dismissed, the complainant may then appeal within the act of 1818, because the decree is final, and if reversed here, the case is sent back for further proceedings below. And under the act of 1831, there may now, by leave of the Superior Court, be an appeal from a decree overruling the demurrer or plea, which does not arrest further progress in the cause in the court below. But unless upon appeal of the one kind or the other, no case can be brought here until it shall have been set for hearing on the merits. This case must therefore be remanded.

Per Curiam. — Remand the cask.
EXHIBIT 23.1 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in thefollowing Registration Statements: 

Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-119109) pertaining to the Incentive Compensation Planof Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.; 

Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-124698) pertaining to the Employee Stock PurchasePlan of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.; 

Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-155437) of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.;

Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-161263) of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.; and 

Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-162197) of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. 

of our reports dated March 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of HornbeckOffshore Services, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

March 1, 2010
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Frank Cable Begins Regional Indo-Pacific Patrol

By MC1 Jonathan TrejoUSS Frank Cable

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                       595
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,057,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                 221,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,980,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,773,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,980,806
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               409,714
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            138,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   132,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
        

</TABLE>