alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 112

 109

 82

 90

 107

 117

 116

 117

 111

 98

 92

 90

 121

 99

 98

 109

 114

 120

 115

 99

 119

 144

 126

 99

 114

 130

 101

 107

 99

 107

 76

 79

 72

 69

 78

 81

 82

 81

 79

 80

 80

 81

 83

 86

 88

 88

 86

 86

 86

 90

 94

 89

 89

 86

 90

 90

 71

 70

 71

 91

 83

 86

 77

 74

 83

 88

 88

 88

 86

 84

 84

 84

 90

 90

 92

 93

 93

 92

 91

 95

 98

 98

 95

 93

 94

 96

 91

 80

 89

 96

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 10, 2007

HIGH LOW MEAN

 79.0

 78.0

 76.7

 75.8

 72.7

 73.8

 73.3

 73.4

 73.0

 73.1

 73.3

 72.5

 71.8

 71.6

 71.5

 70.8

 70.7

 71.2

 68.2

 66.5

 67.6

 66.6

 66.8

 68.0

 68.5

 69.0

 67.9

 66.8

 65.7

 65.4

 74.2

 73.0

 72.5

 71.9

 69.8

 68.7

 69.5

 68.4

 68.6

 68.6

 69.2

 68.7

 67.2

 67.4

 67.2

 66.5

 66.4

 66.6

 65.5

 62.9

 63.0

 64.2

 63.3

 63.6

 63.6

 64.0

 65.1

 64.1

 62.2

 61.2

 76.4

 75.5

 74.6

 73.6

 71.3

 71.1

 71.3

 70.7

 70.7

 70.7

 71.0

 70.5

 69.3

 69.4

 69.1

 68.6

 68.5

 68.6

 66.8

 64.7

 65.1

 65.2

 65.0

 65.7

 65.9

 66.4

 66.5

 65.4

 64.0

 63.3

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.2

 8.4

 8.6

 8.5

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 8.9

 8.8

 8.7

 8.9

 8.8

 8.8

 8.8

 8.9

 8.7

 9.0

 9.2

 9.1

 8.7

 8.8

 8.7

 8.6

 8.5

 8.6

 8.6

 8.9

 9.0

 7.3

 7.3

 7.5

 7.6

 7.7

 8.0

 7.8

 7.7

 7.6

 7.8

 7.7

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.8

 7.8

 7.6

 7.7

 7.8

 7.9

 8.3

 7.7

 7.8

 7.8

 7.9

 7.7

 7.6

 7.8

 7.9

 8.3

 7.6

 7.8

 8.0

 8.0

 8.3

 8.4

 8.3

 8.4

 8.3

 8.3

 8.2

 8.1

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.3

 8.6

 8.6

 8.2

 8.3

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

 8.0

 8.2

 8.4

 8.6

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
**Exhibit 99.1:**

 

**FORM OFCERTIFICATION FOR QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q**

 

I, Faye E. Cannon, certifythat:

 

1)              I have reviewed thisquartrly report on Form 10-Q of F&M Bancorp;

 

2)              Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

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

 

4)              The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”);and

 

c)              Presented in this annualreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of our disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5)              The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation,  to the registrant’s auditorsand audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknessesin internal controls; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether materialor not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6)              The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether therewere significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/  FAYE E. CANNON                    |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Faye  E. Cannon                        |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| May  14, 2003                          |

 

----
#### Khadija BA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-3759.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 31, 2006.

Before DAUGHTREY and COOK, Circuit Judges; CARR, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable James G. Carr, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Khadija Ba petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings.

This citizen of Mauritania conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied Ba’s application, finding her not credible because of inconsistent testimony. The IJ added that even if Ba were credible, he would still deny her application on the basis of changed country conditions.

Ba appealed to the BIA. Despite indicating in her notice of appeal that she would submit a brief, no brief was filed. The absence of the brief triggered a summary dismissal of Ba’s motion, but the BIA Order also included the substantive conclusion that the Board was “not persuaded” the IJ erred.

Ba, through new counsel, moved to reopen removal proceedings, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Ba argues that counsel’s failure to submit a brief deprived her of the “right to seek a petition for review to this Court from the denial of her asylum.” With its 2004 Order the BIA denied the motion because Ba “fail[ed] to show that she was prejudiced by her attorney’s failure to file a brief.” We discern no abuse of discretion in this denial. Despite satisfying the *Lozada*three-part test for showing ineffective assistance of counsel, Ba fails to show she was prejudiced by her counsel’s actions, as required by *Sako v. Gonzales,*434 F.3d 857, 863 (6th Cir. 2006).

*399To demonstrate prejudice from the failure to file a brief, Ba must establish that but for her attorney’s actions she would have been able to remain in the United States. *Huicochea-Gomez v. INS,*237 F.3d 696, 699-700 (6th Cir.2001). As noted by the BIA in its denial of reopening, Ba’s motion failed to address how the Immigration Judge erred in concluding she was not a credible witness, or why she would have been granted relief despite this credibility finding, had her attorney not been ineffective by failing to file a brief. Neither in her motion to reopen nor in her brief did Ba question any aspect of the IJ’s decision denying her asylum. She does not allege that the IJ abused his discretion, committed a clear error of judgment, or failed to weigh any relevant factor. Simply put, Ba failed to demonstrate that the filing of a brief would have precluded the BIA’s removal order, and thus she failed to show prejudice *from*her attorney’s error.

Finding no abuse of discretion, the panel denies the petition for review.
# Appendix2 Table A2-1
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Matthew Dallas, certify that:

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: April 30, 2019

 

| /s/ Matthew Dallas                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Matthew Dallas                                                                 |
| Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos Investments Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned
expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  |  |  |                                                                         
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | /S/ RICHARD HEYSE                                                       
|                     |  |  |  | Richard Heyse                                                           
|                     |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,915
<INVENTORY>                                     38,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          39,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         97,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,449
<SALES>                                         15,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,327
<CGS>                                            3,260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,143
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,143
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
### §2668a. Disposition of trust funds received from foreign governments for citizens of United States

All moneys received by the Secretary of State from foreign governments and other sources, in trust for citizens of the United States or others, shall be deposited and covered into the Treasury.

The Secretary of State shall determine the amounts due claimants, respectively, from each of such trust funds, and certify the same to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall, upon the presentation of the certificates of the Secretary of State, pay the amounts so found to be due.

Each of the trust funds covered into the Treasury as aforesaid is appropriated for the payment to the ascertained beneficiaries thereof of the certificates provided for in this section.

(Feb. 27, 1896, ch. 34, 29 Stat. 32.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 547 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, §1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22922-22923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-75,131]


JLG Industries, Inc., Access Division, A Subsidiary of Oshkosh 
Corporation, Hagerstown, MD; Notice of Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 8, 2011, by a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of JLG Industries, Inc., 
Access Division, a subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation, Hagerstown, 
Maryland (subject firm). The determination was issued on March 9, 2011. 
The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal 
Register on March 23, 2011 (76 FR 16450). The workers are engaged in 
activities related to the supply of design engineering, global 
procurement supply chain, and safety and reliability for the production 
of access equipment.
    The negative determination was based on the findings that the 
subject firm worker group did not separate or

[[Page 22923]]

threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as 
required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Further, 
the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(f) of the Act were 
not satisfied because the workers' firm has not been identified in an 
affirmative finding of injury by the U.S. International Trade 
Commission.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that 
``Remaining employees were required to take a pay cut as well as a one 
week furlough without pay every three month * * * There were over 200 
employees at the JLG Hagerstown, Maryland facilities who were affected 
by this and 100 percent of these employees were required to participate 
in the wage reduction and furlough lay-offs although the furlough lay-
offs were scheduled at different times for different employees to 
maintain some semblance of a work force.''
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-9911 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 11,658.

#### Eisele *v.*Gardner.

Decided October 4, 1926.

Action to recover for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff.

*Affirmed.*

*On Application for Supersedeas.*

1. Appeal and *Error*— Fact *Findings.*Fact findings of the trial court based on conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on review.

*Error to the District Court of Jefferson County, Hon. S. W. Johnson, Judge.*

Mr. Charles E. Friend, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. George B. Campbell, for defendant in error.

*En banc.*

Mr. Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court.

Gardner, plaintiff in the trial court, sued Mrs. Eisele, plaintiff in error, for services performed as a surveyor. The action was first tried in the county court of Jefferson county, and judgment rendered for plaintiff. On appeal to the district court, plaintiff won again. Defendant has brought it to this court, asking for a supersedeas and reversal.

The only assignment of error is that the judgment is contrary to, and is not sustained by the evidence. Counsel for defendant in error invokes the general rule that may he found announced one or more times in almost *172any book of reported cases that may be picked up — he finds six such decisions in the 78th Colorado — that findings on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. Counsel for plaintiff in error attempts to show, on the other hand, that the evidence is not conflicting, that it sustains the latter’s position, and that therefore the rule does not apply, citing excerpts gathered here and there from the testimony of both parties.

We have looked the record over and think that counsel’s own comparison between the testimony of the parties, helps to emphasize the conflict that he says does not exist. We might refer to other parts of the evidence, showing the agreements of hire, performance, including the time spent on the work, the value of the services rendered, the schedule or itemized statement of what plaintiff claimed, which statement was admitted without objection and the amounts of which, with interest, correspond exactly with both the complaint and the judgment. There is ample testimony to sustain the judgment, and the evidence being conflicting, the rule in such cases must apply. The supersedeas will accordingly be denied and the judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Sheaeor and Mr. Justice Campbell not participating.
### §288a. Privileges, exemptions, and immunities of international organizations

International organizations shall enjoy the status, immunities, exemptions, and privileges set forth in this section, as follows:

(a) International organizations shall, to the extent consistent with the instrument creating them, possess the capacity—

(i) to contract;

(ii) to acquire and dispose of real and personal property;

(iii) to institute legal proceedings.

(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

(d) Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments.

(Dec. 29, 1945, ch. 652, title I, §2, 59 Stat. 669.)
# C_2012119EN.01000801.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/8

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2012/C 119/05

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Silico-manganese
  (including ferro-silico-manganese) | People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 (OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5) | 6.12.2012 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Silico-manganese

(including ferro-silico-manganese)

People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 (OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5)

6.12.2012

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---