alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
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 Assignor as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The Assignor'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 Assignor and have:



1. 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 Assignor, 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;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the Assignor'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
3. 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



1. The Assignor's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Assignor's auditors and the audit committee of the Assignor's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. 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 Assignor's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Assignor's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  August 12, 2005 | /s/ John P. Manning 
|---------------------- | --------------------
|                       | John P. Manning     
|                       | Director, President 
|                       | (Principal Executive
|                       | Officer), BCTC IV   
|                       | Assignor Corp.
# Cody-Yellowstone Air Improvement Resources "Promoting Commercial Air Service forthe Bighorn Basin"

December 6,2013
Michael F. Martin Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590 RE: USDOT Essential Air Service Bids for Yellowstone Regional Airport Dear Mr. Martin: -. -•.

Cody-Yellowstone Air Improvement Resources (CYAIR) is comprised ofthe elected and the business leaders of l'ark County. These individuals support commercial air service at Yellowstone Regional Airport. -They recognize that consistent and quality commercial air service is essential to the nearby communities. After reviewing the proposals from SkyWest Airlines and United Airlines to provide Essential Air Service to Yellowstone Regional Airport, the Board of CYAIR fully supports the proposals from both airlines. Park County communities have supported both ofthese airlines inthe past, and look forward to continuing to do sowith the services being proposed. Consistent commercial air service is akeystone for good business and quality oflife. Sincerely, 

# ~ e...~ \....... Raymond Lee CYAIR Administrator

CYAIR P.O. Box1448 Cody, Wyoming 82414 rayleecya ir@gmail.com (602).315-0604
EXHIBIT 99.1


CERTIFICATION 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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





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 operation of the Company.











Date: April 8, 2011                                                           By: /s/ Joseph M. Cummins


Joseph M. Cummins


President, Chief Executive Officer





Date: April 8, 2011                                                           By: /s/ Bernard Cohen


Bernard Cohen


Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6529
WILLIAM HENRY ROACH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-734) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Henry Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIUM: William Henry Roach, a state pri soner, seeks to appeal the district court order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roach has not satisfied either standard. SeeMitchell-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DAIS: 107 ir geovr 

SIGNATURE • TECKLER

APPROVAL • RETURN TO

-CONVENTS FILE

COORDINATION

ACTION

INFORMATION

113g OF !Moro., Po&

co vg. INA Pehtl 

,tE,v,4 irrer.f/ As 4 es v40s r. .0

COMMENTS/DIRECTION :

•

. •

- 7.--- t=7?..71.-- 7 .
•

•

•

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

September 27, 1973

COLONEL

We have reconfigured the "OPERATIONS"

portion of the memorandum to reflect

Dr. &Lucas' views. Please pass the

memo again to Dr. Mamas.

•

••111, ••• n
..„ DATE: 7.• s sofir 7,3 

•

SIGNATURE

APPROVAL

'COMMENTS

COORDINATION

ACTION

INFORMATION 

•

•

XENOMMIIMEN•1••n

TICKLER

RETURN TO

FILE

9S1 OF PtieT03 Po it

c IV Si AtAPPOle 

CO /DIRECTION:

:

•

•
•

•

fr •t•

• :•••••$,

••••. • : • v. - • -r

tiripm.vaLrgislifie

. . •

" • :I"

•••• ' • :•••

. •

r • •

..•n•• "of

'-.•

•
r

. •

TALENT-iiiiett

CONTROL SYSTEM

111EATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

1NASHINGTON. D.C.

101111Mmuso

September 24, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. MCLUCASSUBJECT: Report of the Mapping Task Force

Below is a point paper describing the nature of the

report accomplished under the aegis of OMB. Mr. Willkie

Donelson was Chairman of the Task Force.

The Task Force was chartered to:

Examine civil and military domestic HMG activities.

Investigate ways to improve efficiency and economy.

Formulate a comprehensive national program for MCW.

The paper took almost two years to complete.

Currently 39 agencies expend $305 million involving

about 13,000 man-years on MG. Included in this

figure is DOD at $90 million and 2,900 man-years.

The Navy spends $50 million of this amount on

oceanographic surveys. Covert funding is not

included in these figures.

The paper looks at several areas:

Land Surveys

Land Mapping

Marine Mapping

Technical Services

Pricing

• HANDLE VIA

TALENT-KEYHOLE

CONTROL SYS I CM

umwion v DLIVADA:i.i.stA WI DUI I OA 141101111.11 VW • •1n11410,11.

I Mtge. COM CUM • le •.. I .1. .. N

MIIIIIIMINCn1111, INC. &WU 0 Ok

0/011000 NPII.M.

:oral r aro a.aY d

Commoi. NO Internal

COPY 01 COPIES

PAGE 1 Of PAGES
jar, USAF

. I. • 4

TALENT-KEYOLE

.! National Photographic Data Base

Organization of the MCW Community

Principal recommendations of the Task Force which

relate to the NRO are

Consolidate all civil MCW activities under a single

agency and coordinate all civil MCW requirements.

Make maximum use of satellite-derived photography

for a national data base and regular updates.

Adopt all possible DOD developed technology for

MC&G use.

We prepared a response which is at the right at TAB A.

We have coordinated this with DMA and will provide a copy to

the Secretary of Defense. The DCI response is at TAB B and

voices similar thinking to ours. The report itself is at

TAB C.

. A

TALENT-KEYHOLE

Cc •. • swt•Eks LACUNA, 'SON &m em ICIIIIMAIK

SOO 0.ACCIAtt 5505 10 00(5 ADS APP.•
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies as of the August 14, 2002 to the UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, as follows:

1.     The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Intelligent Systems Corporation
for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 which accompanies this statement fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     Information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Intelligent Systems Corporation.



| | /s/ J. Leland Strange                     
| | ------------------------------------------
|
| | J. Leland Strange,
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2005082EN.01001202.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/12

---

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-32/05)

(2005/C 82/26)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Sara Pardo Quintillán and Joanna Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 22 December 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1

1

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                       AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.
                 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 1997 EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLAN


The following definitions are added to paragraph 2 of the 1997 Employee
Incentive Plan:

         "Parent Corporation" means the direct or indirect owner of 100% of the
         capital stock of a corporation.

         "Substitute Awards" means, in the event of a corporate merger,
         consolidation, acquisition of property or stock, separation,
         reorganization or liquidation, the grant of a Substitute Option or
         Substitute SAR.

         "Substitute Option" means a right to purchase a specified number of
         shares of capital stock of a Transaction Party at a specified price.

         "Substitute SAR" means a right to receive payment, in cash or capital
         stock of a Transaction Party equal to the excess of the fair market
         value or other specified valuation of a specified number of shares of
         capital stock of such Transaction Party on the date the right is
         exercised over a specified strike price, in each case, as determined by
         the Committee.

         "Transaction Party" means a corporation which is a party to a corporate
         merger, consolidation, acquisition of property or stock, separation,
         reorganization or liquidation with the Company, or such corporation's
         Parent Corporation or Subsidiary.

The last sentence of paragraph 14(b) of the 1997 Employee Incentive Plan is
hereby amended in its entirety as follows:

         In the event of a corporate merger, consolidation, acquisition of
         property or stock, separation, reorganization or liquidation, the Board
         will be authorized to issue or assume Awards by means of substitution
         of new Awards or Substitute Awards, as appropriate, for previously
         issued Awards or to assume previously issued Awards as part of such
         adjustment.
November 5, 1929.

#### Niglis, Respondent, vs. Lotz-Rennett Laboratories, Inc., Appellant.

For the appellant: Aylward, Davies & Olbrich of Madison.

For the respondent: Philip G. Sa'nhorn~ of Madison.

By the Court. Order affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30155

Summary Calendar

GULF MARINE EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

C & G BOAT WORKS INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(2:05-CV-6684)

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

In this diversity action, Gulf Marine Equipment, Inc. contests

a summary judgment awarded C & G Boat Works, Inc., concerning their

12 August 2002 brokerage agreement. In it, C & G agreed to pay

Gulf Marine a brokerage fee upon C & G’s obtaining vesselconstruction contracts with five designated companies, including

Rigdon Marine. 

Gulf Marine’s principal, Chalin O. Perez, Jr., requested
2

Rigdon Marine place C & G on its bid list. Rigdon did so, and C &

G submitted a bid. That bid was rejected. Rigdon Marine solicited

bids for another boat package in April 2003. C & G again placed a

bid and was again rejected. Gulf Marine was not involved with the

second bid. 

On 12 August 2003, C & G terminated its brokerage agreement

with Gulf Marine. On 27 June 2004, C & G began discussing with

Rigdon Marine the construction of a vessel; they entered into a

construction contract on 30 September 2004. 

Gulf Marine maintains it was the procuring cause of C & G’s

contract with Rigdon and, therefore, is entitled to a commission

pursuant to the 12 August 2002 brokerage agreement. The district

court awarded summary judgment to C & G, concluding: the brokerage

contract had been terminated; and Gulf Marine was not the procuring

cause of - and therefore not entitled to commission for - the C &

G/Rigdon contract. Gulf Marine Equip., Inc. v. C & G Boat Works,

Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 679, 684 (E.D. La. 2007).

“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and

drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Rothgery

v. Gillespie County, Tex., 491 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2007).

Summary judgment shall be granted when “there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a
3

judgment as a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). 

Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s

opinion, summary judgment was proper. A broker is sometimes

entitled to commission even when a transaction occurs after the

termination of the brokerage relationship. Where, however,

contracting parties brought together by a broker “fail to make a

sale, part ways, and then come together again on their own

initiative after a lapse of time, the broker does not earn a

commission on the sale if he has no hand in the renewed dealings”.

Snyder v. Champion Realty Corp., 631 F.2d 1253, 1255 n.3 (5th Cir.

1980). 

AFFIRMED
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0216 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-025-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 20 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect a loose or missing fastener, a crack, damage, or 

corrosion on the tail rotor (T/R) pylon and, if present, to repair the T/R Pylon and install a doubler on the 

aft shear deck tunnel assembly or to replace the T/R pylon and install the doubler on the aft shear deck 

tunnel assembly to prevent failure of the T/R pylon or other T/R components, and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $339,080

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour for the 

inspection)

(120 x $85/work-hour for 

replacing the T/R pylon and 

installing the doubler)

$85 per cycle

$10,200

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $356,505 assuming 85 inspections per year are 

performed and assuming replacement of the T/R 

pylon and installation of the doubler

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Nicholas Faust
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF U.S. PLASTIC LUMBER CORPORATION FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND TWELVE MONTHS ENDED, DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         854,290               1,170,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,000,388               7,415,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                   148,744                 475,030
<INVENTORY>                                    486,978               1,502,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,292,274               9,833,794
<PP&E>                                       4,212,832               9,494,605
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,277,114               3,719,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,048,075              23,171,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,701,574              10,307,733
<BONDS>                                          6,730                 817,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         75                     209
<COMMON>                                         1,167                   1,562
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,338,529              11,464,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,048,075              23,171,376
<SALES>                                      6,411,656              24,739,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,411,656              24,737,381
<CGS>                                        5,391,225              19,779,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,391,225              19,779,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,311,155               5,280,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                (131,897)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,397                 307,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (245,965)               (709,958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (65,691)                 (4,329)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (180,274)               (705,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 66,859                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (113,415)               (705,629)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)                   (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00                       0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Object Design, Inc. on Form S-8 (files no. 333-14741, 333-31521, and 333-66219)
of our reports dated February 11, 1999, on our audits of the Consolidated
Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedule of Object Design, Inc. as
of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for each of the three years ended December 31,
1998, 1997, and 1996 which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.





                                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 1999