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



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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, each of the undersigned
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our respective
knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) |  | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lason, Inc. for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Lason, Inc.

The foregoing Certification is subject to and qualified by the disclosure in
Part I, Item 2 which provides that while the unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements of registrant included in this quarterly report have been
prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for
interim financial information, they are not in conformity with the
instructions for Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X, as registrant has
not presented comparable information for the three month period ending March
31, 2002. Reference is made to Part I, Item 2: Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Fresh Start
Reporting and Factors that Affect Comparability of Financial Information for a
more complete discussion.

|             |  |                                                                  
|------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|May 15, 2003 |  | /s/  Ronald D. RisherRonald D. Risher
Chief Executive Officer    
|            
|May 15, 2003 |  | /s/  Douglas S. KearneyDouglas S. Kearney
Chief Financial Officer
### §295o. Matching requirement

The Secretary may require that an entity that applies for a grant or contract under this subchapter provide non-Federal matching funds, as appropriate, to ensure the institutional commitment of the entity to the projects funded under the grant. As determined by the Secretary, such non-Federal matching funds may be provided directly or through donations from public or private entities and may be in cash or in-kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §798, as added Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §106(a)(2)(F), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3558.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 295o, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §798, as added Pub. L. 102–408, title I, §102, Oct. 13, 1992, 106 Stat. 2064; amended Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §313(a)(8), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3507, set forth certain general provisions relating to this subchapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–392, title I, §106(a)(2)(D), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3557.

A prior section 798 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 295h–7 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 102–408.

Another prior section 798 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 295h–7 of this title prior to the general amendment of part G of this subchapter by Pub. L. 94–484.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Secretary


List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International 
Boycott

    In order to comply with the mandate of section 999(a)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is 
publishing a current list of countries which may require participation 
in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning 
of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
    On the basis of the best information currently available to the 
Department of the Treasury, the following countries may require 
participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within 
the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986): 
Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, 
United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, Republic of.

    Dated: December 13, 2004.
Barbara Angus,
International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 04-27631 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
### §300d–82. Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this part, there is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XII, §1282, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3505(b), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 527.)
#### Raymond G. Moran, Respondent, v. Port Chester Iron Works, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, William J. Long, Respondent-Appellant, and Noble J. Walker et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which the defendant, Port Chester Iron Works, Inc., in its amended answer pleads, pursuant to section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, two cross complaints for relief over against its codefendant Long, said defendant and codefendant cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated March 28, 1960, and entered in Dutchess County on May 2, 1960: (1) said defendant appeals from so much of said order as grants the motion of the codefendant Long to dismiss the second cross complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for relief over against him, codefendant Long; and (2) said codefendant appeals from so much of said order as denies his motion to dismiss the first cross complaint on the ground that it fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for relief over against him. The first cross complaint is based on the theory of indemnification by contract. The second is based on the theory of indemnification under the common law, namely: that the accident which resulted in plaintiff’s injuries was caused by the sole active negligence of the codefendant Long and that the defendant corporation was guilty only of passive or secondary negligence. On the basis of each cross complaint said defendant corporation seeks judgment over against said codefendant in the event that plaintiff succeeds in recovering judgment against it, the defendant corporation. Order modified by striking out its first decretal paragraph dismissing the second cross complaint contained in the amended answer of the defendant corporation, Port Chester Iron Works, Inc., and by substituting therefor a paragraph denying the motion of the eodefendant Long to dismiss such cross complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to said corporate defendant. As a pleading, the first cross complaint is sufficient (cf. *Brown*v. *Fuller Co.,*3 A D 2d 830). The second cross complaint, read in the light of the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, is also sufficient (see, e.g., *Brady*v. *Weiss & Sons,*6 A D 2d 241; *Robinson*v. *Bingamton Constr. Co.,*277 App. Div. 468). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ. Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 1006.855 Who has the burden of proof in a debarment action? ( a ) We have the burden to prove that a cause for debarment exists.
( b ) Once a cause for debarment is established, you as a respondent have the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the debarring official that you are presently responsible and that debarment is not necessary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2270

EUGENE SHERLOCK HOLMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER, as Administrator of the 

Estate of Attorney General for the State of North Carolina; 

ALL MEDIA T.V. STATIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00570-FDW-DSC)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene T. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Sherlock Holmes appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint as frivolous 

and for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Holmes does not challenge in his 

informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, 

he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ADVANCED AERODYNAMICS & STRUCTURES, INC.
                        (A Development Stage Enterprise)


                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings



<TABLE>
                                                      For the Three Months Ended           For the Six Months Ended
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1996              1997              1996              1997
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<C>                                                <C>                <C>                <C>               <C>
Net loss                                           $(1,005,000)      $(1,358,000)       $(1,346,000)      $(1,877,000)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average number of Class B
Common Stock shares outstanding                      2,000,000         2,000,000          2,000,000         2,000,000
Common Stock equivalents from the issuance
of Bridge Warrants computed using the
treasury stock method                                1,400,000                            1,400,000
Weighted average number of Class A
Common Stock shares outstanding                                        6,900,000                            6,900,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     3,400,000         8,900,000          3,400,000         8,900,000
                                                 =================================================================================
Net loss per share                                       ($.30)            ($.15)             ($.40)            ($.21)
                                                 =================================================================================
</TABLE>
#### Antoinette Dejmek, Respondent, v. Lite-Vent, Inc., Appellant.

Motion by defendant for leave to appeal from an order denying its motion to stay an inquest, to open its default and to vacate order striking out its answer denied, without costs. The order is appealable as of right. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 609; *Matter of Conklin,*7 A D 2d 743.) Motion by defendant for stay of proceedings pending the appeal which it has taken from the above-mentioned order granted on condition: (1) that within 20 days after entry of the order hereon defendant shall file an additional undertaking of $2,250, with corporate surety, to pay the costs of the appeal and to pay any judgment which may be entered against it, in the event the order appealed from be affirmed or the appeal therefrom be dismissed; and (2) that appellant perfect the appeal for October 3, 1960, for which day the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before September 1, 1960. In lieu of filing such additional undertaking, the defendant may enlarge to $3,000 the $750 undertaking now on file and amend its terms to accord with this decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4418 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4418

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic staple fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic staple fibers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Acrylic staple      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          fibers                                                            12/31/2015
                          (polyacrylonitril
                          e staple), not
                          carded, combed,
                          or otherwise
                          processed for
                          spinning, the
                          foregoing
                          containing by
                          weight 92 percent
                          or more of
                          polyacrylonitrile
                          , not more than
                          0.01 percent of
                          zinc and 2
                          percent or more
                          but not over 8
                          percent of water,
                          with a decitex of
                          2.4 to 3.7 (plus
                          or minus 10
                          percent), a fiber
                          shrinkage of from
                          0 to 22 percent
                          (plus or minus 10
                          percent), and a
                          cut fiber length
                          of 89 to 140 mm,
                          with a target
                          length of 115 mm
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5503.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §289h. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–43, title I, §121(b)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 133

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §499, as added Nov. 20, 1985, Pub. L. 99–158, §2, 99 Stat. 878, related to construction of subchapter.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURA FUJISAWA, et al.

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COMPASS VISION, INC., etal.,

Defendant(s).

))))))))))))

No. C07-5642 BZ

Related Cases: C07-3431 BZ     C08-4118 BZ     C09-2016 BZ

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

Inasmuch as the related cases have all been stayed, IT IS

ORDERED that henceforth, all Fujisawa pretrial and trial

documents shall not be filed in the related cases unless there

is a specific need to do so.  

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wilson v. Compass Vision, 

C07-3431 is dismissed with prejudice, the Court understanding

that this matter has been settled.  

Any party who objects to any portion of this Order shall

file an objection by February 22, 2010.

Dated: February 10, 2010 

     Bernard Zimmerman

  United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FUJISAWA V. COMPASS VISION\ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04118-BZ   Document 71   Filed 02/10/10   Page 1 of 1
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: October 30, 2014 106019 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARRELL McCORKLE,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 16, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Matthew C. Hug, Troy, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Gerald A.

Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady

County (Drago, J.), rendered March 8, 2013, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the

second degree.

In satisfaction of a pending 11-count indictment against

him, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second

degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant was adjudicated

a second felony offender and was sentenced, as agreed, to a

prison term of 51⁄2 years to be followed by postrelease supervision

of five years. He appealed from the judgment of conviction. 

Defendant also made a pro se motion to vacate the judgment of

conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, which County Court denied

without a hearing, and this Court declined to permit an appeal

therefrom (2014 NY Slip Op 81478[U] [2014]).
-2- 106019 

Defense counsel now seeks to be relieved of his assignment

of representing defendant on the direct appeal, arguing that

there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised. After

reviewing the record, defense counsel's brief and defendant's pro

se submission, we agree. Thus, the judgment of conviction is

affirmed and defense counsel's application for leave to withdraw

is granted (see People v Ball, 8 AD3d 818, 819 [2004]; People v

Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986];

see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to

be relieved of assignment granted. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
§ 214.43 Agency records. ( a ) The A.I.D. Advisory Committee Management Office maintains the Agency's Official central files on the nature functions, and operations of each A.I.D. advisory committee. Central files contain the following information with respect to each A.I.D. advisory committee: ( 1 ) Original copy of Advisory Committee Charter filed with the Administrator;
( 2 ) Official records copy of formal determinations by the A.I.D. Administrator with respect to the establishment renewal, operation, and termination of the committee;
( 3 ) Annual reports of committee activity;
( 4 ) Designations of Advisory Committee Representatives;
( 5 ) Location of the official files of the Advisory Committee.
( b ) Each A.I.D. Advisory Committee Representative maintains individual advisory committee files at a location known to the A.I.D. Advisory Committee Management Officer. These files contain the following information: ( 1 ) Copies of documents establishing, renewing, and terminating the committee;
( 2 ) Copies of committee charters filed with the A.I.D. Administrator;
( 3 ) Fiscal records which fully disclose the disposition of any funds made available to the committee;
( 4 ) Advisory committee records described above in § 214.36(b) (*i.e.*, the reports, transcripts, minutes, appendices, and other documents which were made available to, or prepared for or by, the committee).
( c ) The A.I.D. Advisory Committee Management Officer, the A.I.D. Auditor General, the OMB Secretariat, and the Comptroller General shall have access to these records.
( d ) Personnel documentation required by CSC and Agency regulations shall be maintained in the official personnel records of the Office of Personnel and Manpower.
§ 214.31 A.I.D. Advisory Committee Representative. ( a ) For each advisory committee used by A.I.D., the Administrator designates an A.I.D., employee to serve as the A.I.D. Advisory Committee Representative.
( b ) The designated A.I.D. employee performs functions required by section 10 of the Act and assigned herein. Such functions include: ( 1 ) Calling, or giving advance approval to, advisory committee meetings;
( 2 ) Approving an agenda for each meeting;
( 3 ) Making recommendations on proposals to close meetings, or parts of meetings, to the public; and clearing such recommendation with the Advisory Committee Management Officer and the General Counsel for decisions by the Administrator;
( 4 ) Assuring that advance notices of each meeting (whether open or closed) are published in the Federal Register, provided through other means such as press releases and direct mail, and provided to the Advisory Committee Management Officer.
( 5 ) Assuring that open meetings are accessible to the public;
( 6 ) As specified by the Administrator, chairing or attending each meeting;
( 7 ) Determining the number of committee members necessary to be present at any meeting for the transaction of committee business;
( 8 ) Adjourning any meeting, whenever he determines adjournment to be in the public interest;
( 9 ) Assuring that minutes are kept of each advisory committee meeting and of the meetings of sub-committees and sub-groups, and that such minutes are certified for accuracy by the chairman or presiding officer of the committee; and
( 10 ) Assuring that, subject to section 552 of title 5 United States Code, the documents of the advisory committee are made available for public inspection and copying.
( 11 ) Maintaining a current list of members of the advisory committee, and furnishing membership information to the A.I.D. Advisory Committee Management Officer on request.
#### § 401.19 Reducing or extending time and dispensing with statements.

In any case where the Commission considers that such action would be in the public interest and not prejudicial to the right of interested persons to be heard in accordance with Article XII of the Treaty, the Commission may reduce or extend the time for the presentation of any paper or the doing of any act required by these rules or may dispense with the presentation of statements in response and statements in reply.