alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.415 Access to course offerings. ( a ) A recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex, or require or refuse participation therein by any of its students on such basis, including health, physical education, industrial, business, vocational, technical, home economics, music, and adult education courses.
( b ) ( 1 ) With respect to physical education classes and activities at the elementary school level, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than one year from March 6, 2003. With respect to physical education classes and activities at the secondary and post-secondary levels, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from March 6, 2003.
( 2 ) This section does not prohibit grouping of students in physical education classes and activities by ability as assessed by objective standards of individual performance developed and applied without regard to sex.
( 3 ) This section does not prohibit separation of students by sex within physical education classes or activities during participation in wrestling, boxing, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( 4 ) Where use of a single standard of measuring skill or progress in a physical education class has an adverse effect on members of one sex, the recipient shall use appropriate standards that do not have such effect.
( 5 ) Portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools, or portions of education programs or activities, that deal exclusively with human sexuality may be conducted in separate sessions for boys and girls.
( 6 ) Recipients may make requirements based on vocal range or quality that may result in a chorus or choruses of one or predominantly one sex.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Related Documents

                  -                                          PD-27R Decision                   

# PD-27(R): Louisiana requirements for hazardous materials incident notification
McNair Paper Number 36, Table of Contents, February 1995
**EXPLAINING AND INFLUENCING
CHINESE ARMS TRANSFERS
KARL W. EIKENBERRY
NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
McNair Paper 36**Contents
INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CHINESE ARMS TRANSFERS 
SUPPLY-SIDE EXPLANATIONS OF ARMS TRANSFERS
SUPPLY-SIDE EXPLANATIONS OF CHINESE ARMS EXPORTS
DEMAND-SIDE EXPLANATIONS OF ARMS TRANSFERS
DEMAND-SIDE EXPLANATIONS OF CHINESE ARMS EXPORTS	
SOURCES OF ARMS TRANSFER RESTRAINT
INFLUENCING CHINESE ARMS SALES
CONCLUSION
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
**TABLES**
1	Chinese Arms Transfers from 1966 to 1979
2	Value of PRC Arms Sales	 
3	Chinese Arms Transfers,  Less Ballistic Missiles, 1980 to 1991
	 4	PRC Arms Deliveries and Agreements, 1987-1991
	 5	Third World Arms Deliveries by Major Suppliers, 1984-1991
	 6	Chinese Arms Industry Defense Conversion, 1980-1990
	7	Comparison of Major Recipients of Chinese Arms 
	 8	Events Influencing Major Acquisitions of Chinese Arms
**| Return to Top |**
*Return to NDU Homepage *INSS Homepage *What's New*******
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 of 1st Net  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'),  I, James
H. Watson Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
------------------------
James H. Watson, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1246** 

JUANITA NELSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
RONNIE HINMAN; LARRY TYLER; THE CRISFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT, Inc.; CHARLES CAVANAUGH , Defendants

– Appellees,

and

CITY OF CRISFIELD , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Benson Everett Legg , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 01816

- BEL )

Submitted : August 8, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS , and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Luke A

. Rommel , OTWAY, RUSSO & ROMMEL, PC , Salisbury, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin B

. Karpinski , Victoria M. Shearer , KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Juanita Nelson appeals the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees on Nelson’s claims of gender discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Nelson v. Hinman , No. 1:10

- cv
- 01816

- B EL (D. Md. Feb. 6,
2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), each of the undersigned officersdoes hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| Dated: August 9, 2006 |   | /s/ David J. Moore                                                             |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                           |
|                  |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                  |
|                  |   |                                                                           |
|                  |   |                                                                           |
| Dated: August 9, 2006 |   | /s/ Jonathan K. Hsu                                                            |
|                  |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating   Office and Chief Financial Officer |
|                  |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                                   |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 13, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-349 Lower Tribunal No. 02-15849

________________ 

### B.P., The Father, Appellant,

vs. 

### Department of Children and Families, et al.,

Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angélica D. Zayas, Judge. Cooke Law P.A., and Stewart M. Cooke, for appellant. Karla Perkins, for appellee, Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division (Tallahassee), for appellee, Guardian ad Litem.
Before EMAS, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See D.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 930 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The standard of review on a termination of parental rights case is ‘highly deferential.’ That is, ‘[a] finding that evidence is clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support’” (quoting N.L. v. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)); J.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 326 So. 3d 76, 78-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (noting that an appellate court will not review the evidence in a light most favorable to the parent, but in a neutral manner to assess whether the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion; so long as the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling on one of the statutory grounds alleged as a basis for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes, a reviewing court will affirm that ruling). See also Lecorps v. Star Lakes Ass’n, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1136 at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2022) (“It is axiomatic that the trial court retains inherent authority to reconsider any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or another order terminating the action”) (citing Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998)); C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 257 So. 3d 1078, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (observing that “the circumstances surrounding the creation of the case plan may extend3

to problems identified subsequent to the children's removal, and not exclusively those identified contemporaneous to removal.”)
§ 43.18 Record of access. ( a ) Each educational institution shall maintain a record kept with the student records of each student, which will indicate all parties other than those specified in § 43.14 which have requested or obtained access to those records and which will indicate specifically the legitimate interest that each party had in obtaining this information.
( b ) A record of access shall be available only to: ( 1 ) Parents or eligible students.
( 2 ) The school official and his or her assistants who are responsible for the custody of such records.
( 3 ) Persons or organizations authorized in and under the conditions of § 43.14.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. MARC ARNOLD, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 211 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00643

- CV
In re Fraudulent Hospital Lien Litigation

On Appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. MDL

- 15

- 0360

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 5, 2020
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION
-------------


I, James H. Watson, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 1st Net Technologies,
Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
         material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 31, 2003

/s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
------------------------
James H. Watson, Jr.
Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Registrant


<PAGE>
Document

EXHIBIT 10.3

AMENDMENT TO INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT


    This Amendment to Investor Rights Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated as of August 5, 2021 and amends the Investor Rights Agreement (the “Agreement”), which was entered into as of March 14, 2018, by and between Athersys, Inc. (the “Company”) and HEALIOS K.K. (“Healios”) (each of the Company and Healios, a “Party” to this Amendment, and collectively, the “Parties”).  All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have such meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


    WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the Agreement, under the terms and conditions of which the Parties continue to perform; 


    WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10(i) of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by the written consent of each Party; 
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2021, the Parties entered into a Comprehensive Framework Agreement (the “Comprehensive Agreement”) to resolve certain issues under agreements that exist between the Parties as of that date, to create a mutually beneficial business arrangement for the commercialization of the Product (as defined in the Comprehensive Agreement) and to expand the scope of their commercial cooperation through amendment(s), waiver(s), consent(s), or termination(s) of such existing agreements or entering into one or more new agreement(s) as outlined in the Comprehensive Agreement; and
    WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement as described below.
    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants herein and for other valuable consideration, the Parties, pursuant to Section 10(i) of the Agreement, agree that Section 8.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and agree that Section 8.2 of the Agreement shall be amended to delete the words “less than 15.0% of the outstanding Common Stock and”. 
     
[Signature Page to Follow.]












    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by its officer thereunto duly authorized as of the date first above indicated.    


															
	
	ATHERSYS, INC.
	
	
	By:		/s/ William Lehmann, Jr.
		 	Name: William Lehmann, Jr.	 	
		 	Title: Interim CEO	 	
					
					
	HEALIOS K.K.

	
	By:	/s/ Dr. Tadahisa Kagimoto
	 	Name: Dr. Tadahisa Kagimoto	 
	 	Title: CEO
§ 13.20 Disclosure of Documents. ( a ) Upon written request to the Reviewing Official, the Defendant may review, at a time and place convenient to the Authority, any relevant and material Documents, transcripts, records, and other materials that relate to the allegations set out in the Complaint and upon which the findings and conclusions of the Investigating Official under § 13.4(b) are based, unless such Documents are subject to a privilege under Federal law. Special arrangements as to confidentiality may be required by the Reviewing Official, who may also assert privilege or other related doctrines. Upon payment of fees for duplication, the Defendant may obtain copies of such Documents.
( b ) Upon written request to the Reviewing Official, the Defendant also may obtain a copy of all exculpatory information in the possession of the Reviewing Official or Investigating Official relating to the allegations in the Complaint, even if it is contained in a Document that would otherwise be privileged. If the Document would otherwise be privileged, only that portion containing exculpatory information must be disclosed.
( c ) The notice sent to the Attorney General from the Reviewing Official as described in § 13.5 is not discoverable under any circumstances.
( d ) The Defendant may file a motion to compel disclosure of the Documents subject to the provisions of this section. Such a motion may only be filed following the serving of an answer pursuant to § 13.9.
Exhibit 99.6



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
Pembina Pipeline Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.H. Dilger, President & Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 my 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                                         of the operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date:  February 25, 2016 |                      
|------------------------ | ---------------------
|                         |                      
|                         | /s/
    "M.H. Dilger"
|                         | Name:                
|                         | Title:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-112080, 333-109589, 333-109408, 333-62890, 333-39171 and
333-87394) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-106196,
333-100793, 333-63804, 333-59163, 333-59157, 333-21997, 33-86634 and 33-94872)
pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan and the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. and the related prospectuses, of our report
dated February 20, 2004 (except for paragraph 2 of Business and Basis of
Presentation in Note 1, as to which the date is March 10, 2004), with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 24, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.38 Do these standards apply to the subcontractors of an Indian tribe or tribal organization carrying out a self-determination contract?

An Indian tribe or tribal organization may require that some or all of the standards in this subpart be imposed upon its subcontractors when carrying out a self-determination contract.
### [§2319. Renumbered §3243]
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 of ITXC Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Tom Evslin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated
result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 10, 2004



/s/    Tom EvslinTom Evslin Chief Executive Officer of ITXC
Corp.




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.