alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, the Chief Executive Officer of Casino Journal
Publishing Group, Inc. (the 'Company"), hereby certify, that to the
best of my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/Glenn Fine
-------------------------------------
Glenn Fine,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002), I, the Chief Financial Officer of Casino Journal
Publishing Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, that to the
best of my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2003

 /s/ Derek James
-----------------------------
Derek James, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI, L.P.(the “Partnership”);     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, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 11, 2005   /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ   Dennis J Tietz  President of CCC  (Chief Executive Officer)
#### 90 8th Avenue Housing Co., Inc., Respondent, v Andover Companies et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 434]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendants Andover Companies and Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in a personal injury action entitled *Patricia Masia, et al., v 90 Eighth Avenue Housing Co., Inc.,*pending in the Supreme Court, Kings *County,*Index No. 2671/90, the defendants Andover Companies and Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated April 19, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *700and granted the plaintiffs cross application for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the plaintiff’s cross application for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiffs cross application; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On December 2, 1989, Patricia Masia allegedly slipped and fell on property owned by the plaintiff, who was a policyholder of liability insurance issued by the appellant Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the appellant Andover Companies. On January 22, 1990, Ms. Masia commenced a personal injury action against the plaintiff by service of a summons and complaint on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. On April 17, 1990, the plaintiff first notified the appellants of the Masia action by forwarding a copy of the summons and complaint to the appellants. On April 20, 1990, the appellants sent a letter of disclaimer to the plaintiff, prompting the plaintiff to commence this action. The appellants subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had breached the provision of the insurance contract requiring it to notify the appellants "promptly of an 'occurrence’ that may result in a claim.”

In opposition to the appellants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from its counsel and an affidavit from its president. Those documents merely raise triable issues of fact on the issue of whether the notice of claim that the plaintiff sent to the appellants was reasonable under the circumstances *(see,.Deso v London & Lancashire Indem. Co.,*3 NY2d 127). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit the correspondence by which it was notified on the claim in the underlying personal injury action. Accordingly, it was error for the Supreme Court to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1708 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, 

a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. 

HASTINGS, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. QUIGLEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of 

a firearm by, a person who is not covered by appropriate 

liability insurance coverage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Firearm Risk Protec5 tion Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1708 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON SALE OF FIREARM TO, AND PUR2 CHASE OF FIREARM BY, A PERSON NOT COV3 ERED BY APPROPRIATE LIABILITY INSUR4 ANCE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(aa)(1)(A)(i) It shall be unlawful for a person to 

9 purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, 

10 the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the pur11 chaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy. 

12 ‘‘(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm 

13 unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the 

14 purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance pol15 icy. 

16 ‘‘(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a 

17 firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this 

18 subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insur19 ance policy. 

20 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the pur21 chase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States 

22 or any department or agency of the United States, or any 

23 State or any department, agency, or political subdivision 

24 of a State. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1708 IH

1 ‘‘(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability in2 surance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of 

3 a firearm, a policy that— 

4 ‘‘(A) provides liability insurance covering the 

5 purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of 

6 the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and 

7 ‘‘(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or author8 ized to provide the coverage by the State insurance 

9 regulatory authority for the State in which the pur10 chaser resides.’’. 

11 (b) PENALTY.—Section 924 of such title is amended 

12 by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined 

14 not more than $10,000.’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 

17 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Rose, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 354]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J., at suppression hearing; Daniel P. FitzGerald, J., at trial and sentence), rendered May 21, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of l3/4 to 31/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Where, as here, the identification of defendant by the *565complainant results from a procedure in which there is no governmental or official participation, suppression is not required *(People v Omaro,*201 AD2d 324; *People v Sanford,*184 AD2d 671, *lv denied*81 NY2d 794). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the admissible hearsay offered at the hearing by the police officer who responded to the private security office, coupled with his first-hand knowledge of the private status of the guards employed there, was sufficient to meet the People’s burden of demonstrating the legality of the pretrial identification (c*ompare, People v Gonzalez,*80 NY2d 883).

Since some of the arguments raised by defendant in support of his contention that the trial court erred in denying his request for submission of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense are being raised for the first time on appeal, they have not been preserved for this Court’s review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court properly determined that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support such submission (CPL 300.50 [1]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:12 PM

To: 'Joe@skycammedia.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additioanl Information - SkyCam Media

Dear Mr. Doran:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 1240). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

* Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e.

‐ fixed

‐ wing,rotorcraft, lighter

‐ than

‐ air) for the proposed UAS

operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located

in the aircraft manual(s).

* Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1,

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed

‐ set filming from

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/8/2015. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC, New Jersey Processing Company to Discuss Apparent Violations

----

----

I-98-110

September 25, 1998

**NRC, NEW JERSEY PROCESSING COMPANY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS**

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Thursday, October 1, with representatives of a New Jersey company that processes radioactive materials for industrial uses to discuss several apparent violations of agency requirements by the firm.

The predecisional enforcement conference involving Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation of Newfield, (Cumberland County), N.J., will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation.

NRC found the apparent violations during an unannounced inspection July 26-27 at the Shieldalloy facility, parts of which are being decommissioned. They include failures to: (1) proceed in a timely manner, as required, with decommissioning work at the company's Haul Road site; (2) notify the NRC that Shieldalloy's parent company, Mettalurg Inc., had been acquired by a group of institutional co-investors; and (3) perform adequate surveys to assess the radioactive dose to workers and the potential contamination of equipment and soils.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report, and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
exmo_ex102.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.2





JOINT STATEMENT BY EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS AND MAIN SHAREHOLDERS


OF EXMOVERE HOLDINGS, INC.







The undersigned, representing all the members of Board of Directors and all shareholders that hold with a minimum of five percent (5%) of all the authorized and issued shares of the Exmovere Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) do hereby agree and undertake that:








	
  

	
1.

	
In anticipation of a successful listing of the Company’s shares on the Deutsche Boerse, each of the undersigned agrees that he shall in good faith, take all reasonable steps and do all things necessary to enter into a Lock-up Agreement for a period of not less than twelve (12) months (the “Lock-up Period). The effective date of the Lock-up Period shall begin at midnight on the day prior to the first day of trading on the exchange;













	
  

	
2.

	
The undersigned acknowledge and understand that a Lock-up Agreement prohibits, among other things, the entering into agreement, agreement in principal, letter of intent or any other agreement or understanding that does or might reasonably expect to result in the offer to sell, contract to sell, assign, transfer or dispose of any share from the period commencing on the first day of trading on the Deutsche Boerse and continuing until the first anniversary of the first day of trading.













	
  

	
3.

	
This Joint Statement by Executive Board Members and Main Shareholders may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which, together shall constitute one document












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned do affix their signatures below:


 




	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ David Bychkov

	 	Date:   	
June 25, 2010

	 
	
Mr. David Bychkov, Chairman

	 	 	
 

	 
	
 

	 	 	
 

	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Cheyenne Crow	 	Date:   	

July 2, 2010

	 
	Mr. Cheyenne Crow, Director	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Robert Doornick	 	Date:  	

June 14, 2010

	 
	Mr. Robert Doornick, Director	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ William D. Heath	 	Date:  	

June 16, 2010

	 
	Mr. William “Bill” Heath, Director	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Joseph Batty	 	Date:  	

June 14, 2010

	 
	Mr. Joseph Batty, Director	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Date:  	 	 
	[Name]
Exhibit
31.2 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas M. Finn, certify that: 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
  of Speedus Corp.;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)
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(c)
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; and5.
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; and(b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
  internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
November 14, 2006By:
/s/ Thomas M. FinnName:
Thomas M. FinnTitle:
Treasurer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer 21
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC Staff Proposes to Fine Fairbanks Hospital $2,500 in Misadministration Case

----

----

RIV-9721

CONTACT: Mark Hammond

April 2, 1997

NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE FAIRBANKS HOSPITAL $2,500 IN MISADMINISTRATION CASE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $2,500 fine against Fairbanks Memorial Hospital in Fairbanks, Alaska, for an apparent violation of NRC requirements that resulted in a patient receiving a dose of iodine-131 that was significantly more than prescribed.

The NRC cited the hospital for a failure to have a written directive signed by an NRC-authorized hospital physician for the administration of iodine-131 to a patient on June 20. The directive should have specified the type of radiopharmaceutical and dosage to the patient.

The hospital's radiation safety officer (RSO) incorrectly filled out a written directive, and failed to have an authorized physician review and sign it to ensure its accuracy, as required. The RSO misadministered a dose of 6.6 millicuries of iodine-131 to the patient. The woman should have received a dose of 100 microcuries. (Six millicuries equals 6,000 microcuries; a curie is a measure of radiation).

An NRC medical consultant, after reviewing the misadministration, determined that its effect on the patient's health should be negligible, with no long-term disability. The smaller 100 microcurie dose was intended for a localized thyroid scan. The higher 6.6 millicurie dose would be used for a whole-body thyroid scan.

"The NRC has concluded that the RSO (radiation safety officer) deliberately proceeded with the administration of this dosage to the patient without the signature of the authorized user on the written directive, which serves as a check to verify that the dosage is correct", Ellis W. Merschoff, Regional Administrator of NRC Region IV in Arlington, Texas, said in a letter to the hospital.

"The RSO stated that he did this because he noted that the patient was apprehensive and he feared that the patient would not tolerate the time delay required to obtain the physician's signature," Mr. Merschoff said. However, the RSO's actions circumvented the very purpose of having an authorized user sign and complete the written directive, as well as the intent of the hospital's NRC-required quality management program.

Mr. Merschoff credited the hospital for identifying the misadministration and promptly reporting it to the NRC, as well as taking corrective actions designed to prevent recurrences.

The NRC has categorized the violation as Severity Level III. The agency's enforcement system uses four Severity Levels, with Level I being the most serious. The hospital has 30 days to respond to the NRC's citation, during which time it may pay the penalty or protest it. If the protest is denied, the hospital may ask for a hearing.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021