alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99

                            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 FlexiInternational  Software, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Stefan R.  Bothe,  as Chief  Executive  Officer  and Acting  Chief  Financial
Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                             /s/  STEFAN R. BOTHE
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Stefan R. Bothe



March 28, 2003
SIGNATURE.

APPROVAL

COMMENTS

COORDINATION

ACTION

INFORMATION:

To CoN6ALISAAN

TICKLER 

RETURN TO

FILE

•

COMMENTS/DIRECTION:'

$S-5

SSO AND SPO HANDLING ONLY 

0.

MoLLaNAA,

BY
TOILSECIET

iSI-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHING-MK. O C

nit NRO STAF

°

100'

0%0'16

17 September 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Briefing to Congressman Mollohan

At Mr. Reed's request, Lt Colonel Alser, Lt Colonel Cromer

and I briefed Congressman Mollohan and Mr. Lally, his Investigations Staff Chi Nom and

Mr. s

iefi . Mollohan seemed extremely interested in the

program and appeared to underst

ed of t

111/111111/111r I belienth Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Lally is sufficiently

high that if embarrassing questions are asked by the Special

Subcommittee on Defense Communications, that Mr. Reed or another

knowledgeable testifier will have the ability to offer a response

privately and not be called to task.

Following the briefing, I informed General Edge of its

outcome and also General Maglione in order to keep him apprised

of our contact with the House Armed Services Committee. We

have offered to be of any further assistance as required

during the course of the hearings.

IMP!

Slot

Lt Colonel, U

CLAIIIIPMIMILRIMMPI PROM

MIRAI. *CHM:MLR OF

IMPICUTIVt ORDER IMO RIIIMPTION CAM

OORY fit ORCURIMPV ON IMP ORT

CONT ROI Nointernal 

COPY OF COPlbS

PAGE ji_OF PAGES
• -

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

-TO-siert NAM

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM •

18 September 1974

NOTE FOR MR. PLUMMER

Attached for your information is a

Memorandum for the Record of the briefing

presented to Congressman Mbllohan of the

House Armed Services Committee.

* ****** - ********

••••

."42P66

e\o'

AMPTOP SEMI
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                           27221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   207862
<ALLOWANCES>                                     37149
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          618046
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1009386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2055215
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25965
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1178025)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1009386
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                418933
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (2318056)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 18968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (826)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1880981)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.072)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.072)





</TABLE>
*January 10, 1933.*

#### Universal Credit Company, Appellant, vs. Stafford and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Mandelker & McCarthy*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *IMrrabee & Larrabee*and *Harold E. Stafford,*all of Chippewa Falls.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
99-8.

#### State v. Willis.

Mahoning App. No. 95CA237. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 16, 1999, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sita sponte.*
40459162

30 'Ay 1962

CoP7

tiltiORANDUR TOR: Director, National 11.0001141611111400 Organisation

SOBJZOT: Assignment of Senior EPIC Representative to the

listional Organisation Staff

At the request of Dr. Scoville, Deputy Director/Research,

discussions were held between representatives of RUC, Technical Plans

and Development Staff, and Colonel Martin **timbal Reconnaissance

Organization staff, relative to the assigiseent of an INC senior

technical representative to the ARO staff as • full-time amber. This

initial meeting was followed by • series of talks between VIC and IRO

members for the purpose of defining the intended activities and

responsibilities involved.

The opportunity for WIC representation is regarded as • means

by which NPIC's requirements and operating policy can be presented on

a daily basis to the IMO in order to insure the means for the most

efficient intelligence exploitation of photographic prodaate from

satellite reconnaissance photography through proper coordination of

programs in their planning stages. In spite of QC's extremely

limited number of properly qualified. senior technical personnel, the

potential benefits to be gained by both AMC and IMO through this

assignment are of such significance as to warrant the ncesination of

the Chief, Technical Piens mg Developing absence from MC for the

period of be a handicap to our technical

development progress. I believe, however, that the cameos benefits

which will accrue through this Coordination assignment will more then

offset EPTC's tmsrpozars logs of a skilled and talented employee.

The position

constraint

•!,

meat

Control N :9—

rtCsi 6-Yr: lE ...;;;nn••n1

NATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATION CENTER

Parr oFFICIE sox 2011

WASHINGTON 1!. D. C.

, 11041.

..**1

5
• 7r") fr-7:-.Z7 

Oak

-wa593,62

313 JukT 1962

his 2 of 2

to his mblencenent to this pole is tulfillamit of the minimum Agency

tint-in-waft requirements. Prwswat planning would Indioate that, fur

the best interests of MC ggIIIIIIIIMEkts tour at duty with MO

be an the order of one pees are moldered

mutually advantageous at the and of his limn three no duty.

MC would hops to have • qualified repairmen*

following his tour of one year. Ammal tours mill

sentatives to maintain their terser positions idth their

organisation and also will provide the best tedmilaai representation

to IRO through the assimmeent of personnel whoare emwt in their

knowledge of WIC's exploitation pines, program and operations.

e.11 C oan assign an acting sepia...end for

it is desired. that he warm his IRO activities in a

This is necessaryin order to insure that IOW'

does not lag. As soon as a replacement is

be assigned to 3120 an a full-time beats. Ms

next two maths. It is desirable that a measure

liaison !Unctions be continued during his full

to insure that adequate technical information, within sorority

restrictions, is given to properly accredited IP13 personnel for

planning purposes.

MI202 C. IMAM

Direetor

C",•••-•-•• . •
#### Sabel, Appellant, vs. Sabel and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Gooding & Gooding*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondents : *Fox & Fox*of Chilton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
NO. 12-08-00343-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

JODY MCCREARY, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On November 21, 2002, Jody Ford McCreary pleaded guilty to the offense of robbery, a

second degree felony. He contends in this original mandamus proceeding that the district attorney

never filed a signed, sworn complaint accusing him of the offense, as required by article 2.05 of the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, his argument continues, the district attorney failed

to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court, and the conviction is void.

Texas courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction in criminal matters. See Dickens v.

Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). However, only the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final postconviction felony

proceedings. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App.1991).

Because McCreary’s complaint relates to a final postconviction felony, we are without jurisdiction

to consider his mandamus petition. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed.

Opinion delivered September 24, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
EXHIBIT 11

                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                           OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               THREE MONTHS       THREE MONTHS
                                                  ENDED              ENDED
                                              MARCH 31, 2004     MARCH 31, 2005
                                              --------------     --------------

<S>                                         <C>                 <C>
Net income (loss)                             $   155,000        $  (644,000)
                                              ============       ============


Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic
-------------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                           5,470,311          5,470,311
                                              ============       ============


Income (loss) per common share -
Basic                                         $       .03        $      (.12)
                                              ============       ============

Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted
---------------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                           5,470,311          5,470,311


Effect of stock options dilution                        0                  0
                                              ------------     --------------

Total shares outstanding for purposes
of calculating diluted earnings                 5,470,311          5,470,311
                                              ------------      -------------


Income (loss) per common and common
equivalent share - Diluted                    $       .03        $      (.12)
                                              ============       ============

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          104,327
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   983,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                     24,858
<INVENTORY>                                     890,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,997,125
<PP&E>                                          642,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                  955,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,643,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,180,729
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         22,695
<OTHER-SE>                                      440,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,643,775
<SALES>                                       1,175,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              3,803,915
<CGS>                                           897,917
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4,568,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 24,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               29,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (794,476)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (796,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (796,876)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)



</TABLE>
# C_2004228EN.01002402.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/24

---

Action brought on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-277/04)

(2004/C 228/48)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Arnaud Bordes of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1) | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2001/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2001 amending Council Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition and Directives 70/524/EEC, 96/25/EC and 1999/29/EC on animal nutrition (1) into national law within the prescribed period, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1)

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2001/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2001 amending Council Directive 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal nutrition and Directives 70/524/EEC, 96/25/EC and 1999/29/EC on animal nutrition (1) into national law within the prescribed period, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;

1

| 2) | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 September 2002.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 234, p. 55.

1

---
#### Watson, Appellant, vs. Chicago Portrait Company, imp., Respondent.

For the appellant: *H. B. Rogers*of Portage.

For the respondent: Grady, *Farnsworth & Walker*of Portage.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
Brigadier General, USAF

•3

•

CLAW'

rsva AR

AM - MOOPTIPOCM

CONIRAL OCIMOULI OF

ancu a x carmws cm.

GORY U ONCLASSIPY ON NAP NT.

nrilli*.fh poor

CONTR

COPY COMM

PAGE 1 OF 1 PAO ES

JrOP-SECRE

,48)1<lATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. 1) C.

111111MVpmen

THE NRO STAFF April 22, 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. IKLE ACDA

SUBJECT: ACDA Intelligence Interest

Mr. Plummer has asked that I take the necessary steps

to assure that ACDA is kept up to date on NRO activities

which relate to your intelligence requirements.

I plan to schedule periodic briefings for you and key

members of your staff which would focus on the verification

problem and which would highlight various issues under consideration by the ExCom. I believe that the most appropriate

time to begin these briefings would be near the time of the

July ExCom. In order that we might achieve the proper

perspective in our briefing preparation, I would be pleased

if your people could assist us by defining your specific

areas of concern vis-a-vis verification prior to the first

briefing.

As you know, Mr. Hyland, of the State Department, attends

ExCom. I believe that you and Mr. Hyland would mutually

benefit by maintaining a close interface on ExCom activities

since he routinely receives the ExCom documents.

I hope that my proposals will assist in meeting your

desires.
#### Stale *v.*Adams.

In an indictment for horse stealing, the jury may infer from circumstances, ihat the horse was taken by the prisoner, in the disirict in which he is tried, although, he was never seen with the horse, in that dls' riot.

Indictment for horse-stealing, and not guilty pleaded ; and upon trial, the evidence was — that the horse was lost ' in Wake county, on (he 10th, and was in *Adams’*possession. sixt^. fiiiles from the place, on the l6*hof thernou h. There he sold him to one of the w ifnesses, and said he had purchased him a few days in-fore, near Edenton, distant from .henee about two hundred miles.

*Duffy^*for the prisoner

There must be a proof of the taking, arid that must be in the district where the priso*535ner is tried. In tpr? -ent rase, there is no proof of a taking in W;ke, nor was ihe* prisoner ever seen in po.s-session of the horse in this district *;*the place where he sold the horse to <he witness, is in the disti ict of Salisbury. It is probable he wight have received the horse from the person that did steal him.

*Per curiam*

When a horse is stolen, and is found in possession of a man, at such a distance from the place vt-here the horse was missing, in so short a time e.ft.-r as shews he must have come directly from that place, and without, any loss of time, that is such evidence as a jury' may infer the guilt of the prisoner upon, as it raises a violent presumption against him, tlui> he Was the taker, ft is however, not conclusive. Any circumstance inducing a probability that the prisoner muy have gotten him honestly, will render it impioprr for a jury to convict,' — ' The case in Hale, where a thief was pursued, and finding himself pressed, got down, desiring a man in the road to hold-his horse till he returned, and the innocent man was taken with the horse, p¡oves how necessary it is, to use caution in convictions founded upon presumptive testimony. There is however, part of the evidence in this case, which shews probably, that the prisoner did not get the horse from another. He said lm had purchased him near Eaenfori — there was no» time sufficient to travel the horse to Edenfou, and b-mk to the place, -where the prisoner sobs him. If from circumstances the jury'infer a taking, the infer! nee also follows that he was taken at file place where missing, and that was in this district.

The jury found him guilty, and he had judgment of death.
Rupprecht Law P. A. 

2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 | Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

May 27, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition to Add Aircraft to Samuel Fleishman’s Exemption. (Exemption # 12362A in Docket 

No. FAA-2015-1624)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Samuel Fleishman (Exemption # 12362A in Docket No. FAA-2015-1624) was granted an 

exemption. Samuel Fleishman requests for an amendment to add all the aircraft from FAA-2007-3330-

0007 to the already existing exemption. The list of aircraft under FAA-2007-3330-0007 does not include 

the following aircraft we are requesting:

 Monster X which has the following specifications:

o Coaxial configuration

o A2 Flight control

o Power hungry 10 PDB

o Kde 75 amp ESCs

o Kde 5215-435 motors

o Kde 18" props

o Futaba R7008SB receiver

 Freefly Systems Alta 8

 DJI Matrice 600

There is no request for additional relief from any further regulations. Granting this exemption 

would not affect safety but will benefit the public because instead of dangerous helicopters being used, 

safer and quieter unmanned aircraft can be used under the restrictions outlined in the previously granted 

exemption. Samuel Fleishman will operate only within the limitations in the previously granted 

exemption.
2

Since the list has been previously granted by incorporation for many other exemption 

amendments and the above listed aircraft are substantially similar to previously granted aircraft, no 

precedent will be set and there is good cause to waive the publishing of this petition in the Federal 

Register.

Sincerely,

________________________

Jonathan B. Rupprecht, Esq.