alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         100,023
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,687,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    683,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,322,456
<PP&E>                                       6,135,394
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,604,928)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,994,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,693,410
<BONDS>                                        641,198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,321,667
<COMMON>                                     6,126,338
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,064,815)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,994,692
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,102,509
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,992,297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (248,118)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (346,303)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            153,697
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,950,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,603,697
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Seventy-Ninth Meeting--Special Committee 159--Global Positioning 
System (GPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System (GPS).

DATES: The meeting will be held June 23-26, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. (unless stated otherwise).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 159 meeting. The agenda will 
include:

June 23

    <bullet> All Day, Working Group 2C, GPS/Inertial, Colson Board 
Room.

June 24

    <bullet> All Day, Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, Colson Board Room.

June 25

    <bullet> All Day, Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance (GPS/
LAAS), MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton-ATA Room.

June 26

    <bullet> Open Plenary (Chairman's Introductory Remarks, Approval of 
Summary of the Seventy-Eighth Meeting held February 13, 2009, RTCA 
Paper No. 122-09/SC159-978).
    <bullet> Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for 
Resolution.
    <bullet> GPS/3nd Civil Frequency (WG-1)
    <bullet> GPS/WAAS (WG-2)
    <bullet> GPS/GLONASS (WG-2A)
    <bullet> GPS/Inertial (WG-2C)
    <bullet> GPS/Precision Landing Guidance and (WG-4)
    <bullet> GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG-5)
    <bullet> GPS/Interference (WG-6)
    <bullet> GPS/Antennas (WG-7)
    <bullet> GPS/GRAS (WG-8)
    <bullet> Review of EUROCAE Activities.
    <bullet> Closing Plenary Session.

(Assignment/Review of Future Work, Other, Date and Place of Next 
Meeting.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-12990 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements No. 333-83676, 333-83682, 333-137129 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 17, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of ManTech InternationalCorporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48 and FASB Statement 123(R), new accounting standards), and the effectiveness ofManTech International Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting dated March 17, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ManTech International Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

McLean,Virginia 

March 17, 2008
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.1    
    


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

OF

AMG CAPITAL TRUST II  


        THIS Certificate of Trust of AMG Capital Trust II (the "Trust") is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned to form a statutory trust under the
Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. §3801 et seq.)(the "Act"). 


        1.     Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is AMG Capital Trust II. 


        2.     Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware is LaSalle National
Trust Delaware, 1201 North Orange Street, Suite 1000, Wilmington, DE 19801. 


        3.     Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act. 



	 	 	LASALLE NATIONAL TRUST DELAWARE,

not in its individual capacity but solely as Delaware Trustee
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  EVELYN CRUZ      
 Name: Evelyn Cruz

Title: Assistant Vice-President













QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tarique Simmons, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 775]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), dated November 7, 2012, which denied, without a hearing, his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his convictions of criminal sale of a con*655trolled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed on March 29, 1993.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance with the resentencing procedure set forth in CPL 440.46.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. Although resentencing is not mandatory, there is a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing *(see*L 2004, ch 738, § 23; CPL 440.46 [3]; *People v Berry,*89 AD3d 954, 955 [2011]; *People v Beasley,*47 AD3d 639, 641 [2008]). Under the circumstances of this case, the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying the motion — the defendant’s criminal history, disciplinary infractions, and parole violations — are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The defendant served more than 14 years in prison for a low-level drug crime committed when he was 19 years old. The defendant’s criminal history included only larcenous and low-level drug crimes, all committed before he was 20 years old. While the defendant violated his parole by failing to abide by certain parole rules, including, inter alia, by breaking curfew and by traveling to Georgia to be reunited with his family, he has never committed another crime or had a positive drug test. Under all of the circumstances presented here, “the presumption that the defendant is entitled to benefit from the reforms enacted by the Legislature based upon its judgment that the prior sentencing scheme for drug offenses like that committed by the defendant was excessively harsh, has not been rebutted” *(People v Berry,*89 AD3d at 956; *see People v Green,*110 AD3d 825 [2013]; *People v Concepcion,*85 AD3d 811, 812 [2011]). Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30202

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DON M. ANDREW, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:12-CR-266-2

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don M. Andrew, Jr., pleaded guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy, 

arson, wire and mail fraud, and use of fire to commit a federal felony and was 

sentenced to a total of 240 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of

supervised release. Andrew’s plea was made pursuant to a Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which stipulated that the 

 

* 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

August 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30202 Document: 00513617227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2016
No. 15-30202

2

parties agreed to the imposition of a 240-month sentence and contained a 

waiver of the right to appeal.

On appeal, Andrew argues that the district court plainly erred by failing 

to provide fact-specific reasons for imposing the sentence. The Government

moves to dismiss the appeal as barred by a knowing and voluntary appeal 

waiver, or alternatively, for summary affirmance or an extension of time to file 

a merits brief.

To determine whether Andrew’s appeal of his sentence is barred by the 

appeal waiver, we analyze whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and 

whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain 

language of the agreement. United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 

2005). As Andrew concedes, his challenge to his sentence falls within the scope 

of his appeal waiver. Further, the record reflects that Andrew knew that he 

had a right to appeal and that he was giving up that right; thus, the waiver 

was knowing and voluntary. United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 n.2 

(5th Cir. 2005). Although he asserts that he could not have knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence before it was imposed, “the 

uncertainty of [an] Appellant’s sentence does not render his waiver 

uninformed.” United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s alternative motion for summary 

affirmance is DENIED, and the motion for an extension of time to file a merits 

brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

 Case: 15-30202 Document: 00513617227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2016
**Single Engine Airtanker (SEAT) Base**

**This checklist is applicable to Category 1 and 2 SEAT Bases and is not required for review of SEAT operations at Large Airtanker Bases.**

**For the National Preparedness Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

**GENERAL SEAT BASE INFORMATION**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**AIRPORT FUELING**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

****

**JETTISON AREAS**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**DISPATCH INFORMATION**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**ORDERING GENERAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**SEAT BASE FACILITIES**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

****

**SEAT BASE FACILITY SAFETY**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**RAMP OPERATIONS**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**WATER SYSTEM AND SUPPLY**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**RETARDANT SYSTEM**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**RETARDANT SUPPLY**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

**BRIEFINGS/SEAT BASE POLICIES**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

****

**ADMINISTRATIVE**

**Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed**

Checklist #12 - SEAT Base	1	Revised June 2021

# image1.png
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




Exhibit 10.2




PROMISSORY NOTE




			
	 	 	 
	$75,000.00
	 	October 20th, 2007






FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Newsearch, Inc., a Colorado corporation (“Maker”) promises
to pay to the order of Profit Consultants Inc (“Lender”), at its principal office, or at such other
place as may be designated in writing by the holders of this Promissory Note (“Note”), the
principal sum of SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND 00/100 DOLLARS ($75,000.00) (the “Principal Sum”). The
unpaid Principal Sum shall bear interest at 7.5% per annum and shall be due in twelve (12) months.



All payments to be made under this Note shall be payable in lawful money of the United States
of America which shall be legal tender for public and private debts at the time of payment.



In the event that an action is instituted to collect this Note, or any portion thereof, Maker
promises to pay all costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees,
court costs, and such other sums as the court may establish.



In the event of a default under this Note when due, then the holder of this Note, at its
election, may declare the entire unpaid Principal Sum due and payable.



Every provision hereof is intended to be several. If any provision of this Note is
determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such
illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions hereof, which
shall remain binding and enforceable.



This Note is made in the State of Colorado and it is mutually agreed that Colorado law shall
apply to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this Note.



All agreements between the holder of this Note and Maker are hereby expressly limited so that
in no contingency or event whatsoever, whether by reason of deferment or acceleration of the
maturity of this Note or otherwise, shall the rate of interest hereunder exceed the maximum
permissible under applicable law with respect to the holder. If, from any circumstances
whatsoever, the rate of interest resulting from the payment and/or accrual of any amount of
interest hereunder, at any time that payment of interest is due and/or at any time that interest is
accrued, shall exceed the limits prescribed by such applicable law, then the payment and/or accrual
of such interest shall be reduced to that resulting from the maximum rate of interest permissible
under such applicable law. This provision shall never be superseded or waived.



The makers, endorsers, and/or guarantors of this Note do hereby severally waive presentment,
demand, protest and notices of protest, demand, dishonor and nonpayment.


 


 









 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed as of the date first hereinabove set forth.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NEWSEARCH, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kenneth Adessky
 	 
	 	 	Kenneth Adessky, 	 
	 	 	C.F.O
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc.
Waltham, Massachusetts

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting a part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-
80009 and 333-06147) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-
3333718) of our report dated December 4, 1998, relating to the consolidated 
financial statements of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. appearing in the Company's 
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1998.


                                       BDO Seidman, LLP

Boston Massachusetts
December 23, 1998
**EXHIBIT
      32**









**STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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-QSB of China Digital Media
      Corporation (the "Company") for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Daniel Ng, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify that:





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





*
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates
      and for the periods presented.





*/s/
                Ng Chi Shing*
              *---------------------*
              *Ng
                Chi Shing*
              *Director,
                President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer*
              
              *November
                20, 2006*








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
CJIS BIOGRAPHIC VERIFICATION REQUEST INSTRUCTIONS

(formerly referred to as a Name Check)

Can I request a CJIS Biographic Verification?

• A Biographic Verification is available to any federal, state, and regulatory agency that 

currently has the authority to submit fingerprints for noncriminal justice purposes. 

• If you have submitted fingerprints as part of the Departmental Order process, please refer 

to: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks. 

When can I request a CJIS Biographic Verification?

One of the following criteria must be met for the CJIS Division to process a CJIS Biographic 

Verification request.

• The individual is permanently, physically incapable of providing fingerprint images or is 

a double amputee.

o The individual’s name, date of birth, sex, and race must be included in the 

request.

• The individual’s fingerprints are illegible due to medical degradation of ridge detail, age, 

or nature of work. 

o Two fingerprint submission image quality rejections must have been received, 

including at least one L0008 rejection with a message literal stating, “The quality 

of the characteristics is too low to be used. Candidate(s) were found. Please 

resubmit a new set of fingerprints for comparison to the candidate(s).”

o The request must include the Transaction Control Numbers (TCN) from the two 

previous rejections.

 The TCN format is: E—followed by the current or previous year and 15 

additional numerals. Example: E2021012000000345678

How do I submit a request for a CJIS Biographic Verification?

• Complete the attached request form.

• Email the completed form to CJISBioVerify@fbi.gov.

o Biographic verification results will be emailed to the requesting agency. If the 

results should be sent to another authorized agency, please include the appropriate 

official email address in the request.

Is there a time limit for obtaining these CJIS Biographic Verifications?

• Yes. The Biographic Verification request must be submitted within 90 days of the last 

rejection date. The first rejection must be within 1 year prior to the second rejection.

Who can I contact if I have further questions about the CJIS Biographic Verification 

process?

• Email CJISBioVerify@fbi.gov.
#### CENTENNIAL STEVEDORING SERVICES; et al., Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; et al., Respondents.

No. 04-72224.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2005.

Decided June 22, 2006.

James P. Aleccia, Esq., Aleccia *&*Conner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioners.

Erick L. Richardson, U.S. Department of Labor ESA/OWCP, Long Beach, CA, Thomas Shepard, Benefit Review Board, Carol DeDeo, Associate Solicitor, Mark A. Reinhalter, Attorney, Michael Niss, Helen H. Cox, Esq., LABR — U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, David Utley, Esq., Law Offices of David Utley, Carson, CA, Eric A. Dupree, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Respondents.

Before: LEAVY, COWEN,* and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, *789sitting by designation.

*789MEMORANDUM **

1. Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) finding that Claimant Cosmo Colaruotolo sustained an injury on February 19, 2001, while employed by Centennial Stevedoring Services, and that the February 19, 2001 injury aggravated, accelerated, or combined with his preexisting condition to at least partially create the ultimate disability. *See Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co.,*339 F.3d 1102, 1104-05 (9th Cir.2003), *cert. denied,*543 U.S. 940, 125 S.Ct. 309, 160 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004). Accordingly, the Benefits Review Board properly upheld the ALJ’s determination that Centennial is the last responsible employer.

2. There was no abuse of discretion in denying Centennial’s motion to reopen the evidentiary record. Centennial’s new evidence of “collusion” on which the motion to reopen was based does not undermine the validity of the documentary and testimonial evidence on which the ALJ relied. *Cf. E.P. Pawp Co. v. Director,*999 F.2d 1341, 1347 n. 1 (9th Cir.1993) (recognizing the ALJ’s broad discretion to correct *mistakes*in the record.). Neither does the new evidence establish that Claimant contravened the goals of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. *See Keenan v. Director,*392 F.3d 1041, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2004).

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.