alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# **Exhibit99.1**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

    Pursuant to Section 906of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Gene W. Ray, theChief Executive Officer of The Titan Corporation (the“Company”), and Mark W. Sopp, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

**1.**      TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 forthe period ended December 31, 2001, to which this Certification isattached as Exhibit 99.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

**2.**      Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the PeriodicReport.

Dated:  August 7, 2002

| /s/ GENE W. RAY               |           | /s/ MARK W. SOPP |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                                    |                                                        |
| Gene W.Ray Chief Executive Officer | Mark W.Sopp** Chief Financial Officer                  |
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17198]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Chapter 1


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small Entity Compliance Guide

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Small Entity Compliance Guide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document is issued under the joint authority of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the 
Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as 
the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council. This Small Entity 
Compliance Guide has been prepared in accordance with Section 212 of 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-121). It consists of a summary of the rule appearing in Federal 
Acquisition Circular (FAC) 97-06 which amends the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR). Further information regarding this rule may be 
obtained by referring to FAC 97-06 which precedes this document. This 
document may be obtained from the Internet at http://www.arnet.gov/far.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FAR Secretariat, (202) 501-4755.

Reform of Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement

    FAC 97-06/FAR Case 97-004A. The interim rule amends FAR Parts 1, 
12, 14, 15, 19, 33, and 52 to establish a mechanism to benefit small 
disadvantaged business concerns at the prime contract level. This 
mechanism is a price evaluation adjustment of up to ten percent in 
certain Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Groups as 
determined by the Department of Commerce. This price evaluation 
adjustment conforms to the Department of Justice proposal to reform 
affirmative action in Federal procurement and to regulations issued by 
the Small Business Administration regarding small disadvantaged 
business programs. This price evaluation adjustment is mandatory for 
those competitive procurements to which it applies. It does not, 
however, apply to several major categories of acquisition, including, 
for example, acquisitions within the simplified acquisition threshold, 
acquisitions set aside for small business, and acquisitions conducted 
pursuant to the 8(a) program.

    Dated: June 23, 1998.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 98-17198 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
No. 10-7810.

#### Feliciano Memije-Santos, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1162, 131 S. Ct. 970,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 131.

178 L. Ed. 2d 797,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 394 Fed. Appx. 437.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of El Paso Natural Gas Company (the "Company") on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-14617,
333-42713, 33-44327, and 33-55153) and the registration statements of the
Company on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-26813, 333-26823, 333-26831, 33-46519,
33-48853, 33-51851 and 33-57553) of our report dated March 12, 1998, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement
schedule of the Company as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years
ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
 
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Houston, Texas
March 20, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17864]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 20, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, P.O. Box 291, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Lonnie E. Clark, Chandler, Minnesota; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Chandler Bancshares, Inc., Chandler, Minnesota, and 
thereby indirectly acquire State Bank of Chandler, Chandler, Minnesota.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Leonard R. Scoleri and Synthia L. Scoleri, both of Guernsey, 
Wyoming; to acquire voting shares of Community Bankshares of Wyoming, 
Guernsey, Wyoming, and thereby indirectly acquire Oregon Trail Bank, 
Guernsey, Wyoming.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 30, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-17864 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
April 23, 2015

Manager, Flight Standards Service Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office FAA Headquarters, Building 10A 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Re: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 11253 to Regulatory Dock et No FAA

- 2014

- 0817

for Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management (DFAM) for additional aircraft.

Attention: FAA UAS Integration Office

DFAM respectfully requests the addition of the following aircraft to our Exemption No.

11253 and COA FAA

- 2014

- 0817

- 333E:

Add itional Aircraft Requested:

• DJI Inspire

o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant /Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of Exemption No. 11336)

• AeroVironment Puma AE

o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant /Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of Exemption No. 11 261)

• PrecisionHawk Lancaster

o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant /Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of Exemption No. 11309)

• AirRobot AR180 & AirRobot AR200

o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant /Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of Exemption No. 11206)

• 3D Robotics Spektre Industrial Multi

- Rotor Aerial Vehicle

o (Note Maybe Eligible for Summary Grant /Amendment by previous FAA Analysis of Exemption No. 11206)

DFAM’s existing safety standards and procedures as outlined in our Flight Operation &

Procedures M anual (FOPM) will continue for the additional Aircraft. We will follow the recommended Maintenance and Operations Parameters set forth by each of these respective UAV Manufactures.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e

- mai l address provided above should you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Simon Nielsen

CEO

, Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management , Inc. Simon Nielsen

CEO

Drone Fleet & Aeros pace Management, Inc. 606 Venice Blvd, Suite E Venice, CA 90291 (213) 379

- 0629 Simon.Nielsen@drone

- fleet.com

www.drone

- fleet.com
# C_2015406EN.01000902.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v Biovet AD

(Case C-306/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 27(1)(d) - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Ethyl alcohol - Use for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and facilities used for the production of medicines))

(2015/C 406/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant: Biovet AD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to exempt laid down in that provision applies to ethyl alcohol used by an undertaking for cleaning or disinfecting equipment and facilities used in the production of medicines.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---
<PAGE>






                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of R.H. Donnelley
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned 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 such
officer's 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 operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


/s/ David C. Swanson


David C. Swanson
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2604 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2604

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
                penalty in the income tax rate brackets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
                penalty in the income tax rate brackets.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Make Marriage Great Again Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INCOME TAX RATE BRACKETS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Elimination of Marriage Penalty.--In the case of any taxable 
year beginning after December 31, 2018--
            ``(1) in lieu of the table which would otherwise apply 
        under subsection (a) or (j)(2)(A) for such taxable year, the 
        table which applies under subsection (c) or (j)(2)(C), 
        respectively, shall apply determined by substituting for each 
        dollar amount contained therein a dollar amount which is twice 
        such dollar amount (as otherwise in effect for such taxable 
        year),
            ``(2) subsection (c) shall be applied without regard to the 
        phrase `who is not a married individual (as defined in section 
        7703)', and
            ``(3) subsections (d) and (j)(2)(D) shall not apply.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2813 

To permit aliens seeking asylum to be eligible for employment in the United 

States and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2019 

Ms. PINGREE (for herself, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. OMAR, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Ms. 

OCASIO-CORTEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit aliens seeking asylum to be eligible for 

employment in the United States and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Asylum Seeker Work 

5 Authorization Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR ALIENS SEEK7 ING ASYLUM. 

8 Paragraph (2) of section 208(d) of the Immigration 

9 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(d)) is amended to 

10 read as follows: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2813 IH

1 ‘‘(2) EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION.— 

2 ‘‘(A) ELIGIBILITY.—The Secretary of 

3 Homeland Security shall authorize employment 

4 for an applicant for asylum who is not in deten5 tion and whose application for asylum has not 

6 been determined frivolous. 

7 ‘‘(B) APPLICATION.—An applicant for asy8 lum who is not otherwise eligible for employ9 ment authorization shall not be granted such 

10 authorization prior to 30 days after the date of 

11 filing of the application for asylum. 

12 ‘‘(C) TERM.—Employment authorization 

13 for an applicant for asylum— 

14 ‘‘(i) shall be for a period of 1 year; 

15 and 

16 ‘‘(ii) shall be renewable for additional 

17 1-year periods for the entire continuous pe18 riod necessary to adjudicate the applicant’s 

19 asylum claim, including administrative or 

20 judicial review.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
July 31, 2013

Mr. J. B. Marshall

Morristown Flying Services, Inc.

2349 Valley Home Road

Talbott, Tennessee, 37877

Dear Mr. Marshall:

This is in response to your July 17, 2013 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-

1221) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Morristown Flying 

Services, Inc. (MFS) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow MFS to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program.

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs 

final rule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or on-demand 

operators that also conduct commercial air tour operations to combine the drug and alcohol 

testing required for each operation into one testing program. A copy of this rule change is 

enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions, please contact the FAAs Drug Abatement Division at (202) 267-

8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov. Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new 

rule, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17968]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Department of Justice United States Parole 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, July 9, 1998.

PLACE: 5550 Friendship Boulevard, Suite 400, Chevy Chase, Maryland 
20815.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open 
Parole Commission meeting:
    1. Consideration of Proposed Interim Regulations and Guidelines for 
District of Columbia prisoners to take effect August 5, 1998.
    2. Budget Proposal for the Fiscal Year 2000.

AGENCY CONTACT: Tom Kowalski, Case Operations, United States Parole 
Commission, (301) 492-5962.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
Michael A. Stover,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-17968 Filed 7-1-98; 2:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
No. 10-607.

#### Donald Sullivan, Petitioner v. North Carolina.

562 U.S. 1138, 131 S. Ct. 937,

178 L. Ed. 2d 754,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 574.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.

Same case below, 201 N.C. App. 540, 687 S.E.2d 504.
#### Anthony Graziano, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[60 NYS3d 299]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated January 21, 2016, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant City of New York and against him on the issue of liability and for a new trial on that issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while riding a motorized bicycle on a sidewalk in Brooklyn, when his bicycle hit a raised sidewalk flag, causing him to fall. The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action against, among others, the City of New York. The matter proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of liability, after which the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the City, based upon a finding that the City was negligent, but that its negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict, arguing, among other things, that it was inconsistent and contrary to the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

“Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, *681but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” *(Gaudiello v City of New York,*80 AD3d 726, 726-727 [2011]; *see Ahmed v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*131 AD3d 493, 495 [2015]). “Where the only reasonable view of the evidence presented at trial was that a defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, a verdict finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence” *(Ahmed v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*131 AD3d at 495).

Here, the plaintiff acknowledged at trial that he should not have been riding a motorized bicycle on the sidewalk. Further, the plaintiff was riding fairly fast, particularly considering that, as he testified, the area of sidewalk where he was riding was “extremely dark.” Under these circumstances, a reasonable view of the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the City was negligent, and that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Moffett-Knox v Anthony’s Windows on the Lake, Inc.,*126 AD3d 768 [2015]; *Henry v Town of Hempstead,*119 AD3d 649, 649-650 [2014]; *Coma v City of New York,*97 AD3d 715, 716 [2012]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict was properly denied.

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 10-7105.

#### Ruth Ellen Stoever, Petitioner v. Tech USA, et al.

562 U.S. 1145, 131 S. Ct. 917,

178 L. Ed. 2d 766,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 201,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 492.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  376,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,621
<INVENTORY>                                    679,382
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,109,012
<PP&E>                                       1,155,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                 534,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,130,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          524,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,242
<OTHER-SE>                                     946,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,130,754
<SALES>                                      3,128,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,128,728
<CGS>                                        2,309,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  574,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                212,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                    69,946
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            142,210
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,210
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30
        

</TABLE>