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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                       244
<INVENTORY>                                      6,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,986
<PP&E>                                          15,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,727
<SALES>                                         34,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,117
<CGS>                                           22,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,021)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,184)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,184)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.63)
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of NT Media Corp. of California, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ali Moussavi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 and 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 Registrant.




Date: April 15, 2011





By: /s/ Ali Moussavi


Ali Moussavi,


Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Henry Doroski, Deceased. Rose Romanowski, Respondent; Adam Doroski, as Executor of Henry Doroski, Deceased, Appellant.

In a proceeding to remove Adam Doroski as the executor under the last will and testament of Henry Doroski, deceased; to appoint the petitioner Rose Romanowski as administratrix, *c. t. a.,*in his stead, and for alternative relief, “with costs against Adam Doroski, personally,” the said executor, Adam Doroski, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, entered January 30, 1963, as, in granting the petition and removing him and appointing the petitioner administratrix, c. *t. a.,*imposed costs and disbursements upon him personally. Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent against appellant personally. The Surrogate’s memorandum granting the application for removal of the executor Doroski, made no mention of costs and disbursements. The proposed decree, which was submitted on notice, contained a provision for costs and disbursements to be imposed upon the executor personally. The executor contends, *inter alla,*that because of section 440 of the Civil Practice Act, costs could not properly be imposed in the decree since costs had not been imposed in the “ decision ”. In our opinion, section 71 of the Surrogate’s Court Act is the more appropriate section to be invoked, but neither section has a controlling application here because they both relate primarily to the rendition of a decision after a *trial*before the court without a jury. In the case under review there was no trial whatsoever, but colloquy only; and we do not regard the Surrogate’s memorandum as such a decision. The Surrogate’s “ determination ” was not pronounced until he had made the decree which awarded the costs and disbursements (see Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 78). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lawrence Butler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A-1 of Alpha Technologies Group,
Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision 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 report is being prepared;

b) (Intentionally left Blank)

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


/s/ Lawrence Butler
----------------------------
Lawrence Butler
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2004
Third Department,

May, 1962

(May 1, 1962)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph P. Mangan, Appellant.

Motion granted. Appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Case is set down for May 16 for argument. Cross motion denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
**WELCOME TO THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS**

##### **February 26, 2021**

 

Welcome to the Office for  Civil Rights.  Here in OCR (as we’re often called), our mission is clear:  we work to ensure our nation is a place where all students attend and  participate in school free from discrimination.  

As Secretary-designate Dr.  Miguel Cardona said in the Senate hearing on his nomination as Secretary of the  Department of Education, “For me, education opened doors. That is the power and  promise of America — but it is not a promise kept for every student. . . [We  must] work tirelessly to make sure our education system is a door to  opportunity, a great equalizer, for every American.”   

We know that a school is so  much more than a collection of classrooms. For young children learning to share  a toy, graduate students in seminars and labs, and every student in between,  schools offer students the space – both in-person and virtual – for new ideas,  skills and friendships. This is why education holds the promise of our nation’s  future.  

Our job in OCR is to ensure  that all students experience these opportunities without  discrimination.           We do this by:  
              - Educating people about our nation’s education  civil-rights laws.  Providing information to students, families, schools  and the broader national community about protections against discrimination in  education.  
              - Providing guidance on how the laws work.  Helping schools protect  their students’ civil rights with guidance and other assistance.   
              - Investigating allegations of discrimination.  Enforcing our civil rights  laws by receiving and responding to discrimination complaints.  
              - Analyzing data about student experiences in schools.  Collecting, analyzing and  sharing civil rights data about our nation’s schools.   

 

Right now, one of our top  priorities in the Department of Education—and across the nation—is helping  schools reopen safely and in ways that support equity among students. For OCR,  this means working to ensure that equal educational opportunity is part of  every reopening plan.   

There is much work to be  done to fulfill Congress’s commitment to civil rights in education, including  its laws, enforced by OCR, that prohibit discrimination based on race, color,  national origin, sex, disability and age.   

All of us in OCR take up  this important mandate with thoughtful urgency and a full dedication to  students, their families and schools, and our nation’s promise of equal  educational opportunity for all.             For more information about  OCR and the laws we enforce, please see About OCR.   

 

Suzanne B. Goldberg          Acting Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights          Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Operations and  Outreach          U.S. Department of Education
EXHIBIT 2.8





State of Delaware

Secretary of State

Division of Corporations

Delivered11: 52 AM12/29/2010

FILED11: 52 AM12/29/2010

SRV101244144 -2142629 FILE
STATE OF DELAWARE


CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF


DOMESTIC CORPORATION INTO FOREIGN CORPORATION





Pursuant to Title 8, Section 252 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the undersigned corporation executed the following Certificate of Merger:





First: The name of each constituent corporation is PhotoMedex, Inc., a Nevada  corporation, and PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation.





Second: The Agreement and Plan of Merger has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent corporations pursuant to Title 8, Section 252.





Third: The name of the surviving corporation is PhotoMedex, Inc., a Nevada corporation.





Fourth: The Certificate of Incorporation of the surviving corporation shall be the Certificate of Incorporation of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Nevada corporation.





Fifth: The merger is to become effective immediately upon filing with, and acceptance by, the Secretary of State for the State of Nevada of this Certificate of Merger.





Sixth: The Agreement and Plan of Merger is on file at 147 Keystone Drive, Montgomery- ville, Pennsylvania 18936, the principal place of business of the surviving corporation.





Seventh: A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger will be furnished by the surviving corporation on request, without cost, to any stockholder of the constituent corporations.





Eighth: The surviving corporation agrees that it may be served with process in the State of Delaware in any proceeding for enforcement of any obligation of the surviving corporation arising from this merger, including any suit or other proceeding to enforce


the rights of any stockholders as determined in appraisal proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation laws, and irrevocably appoints the Secretary of State of Delaware as its agent to accept service of process in any such suit or proceeding. The Secretary of State shall mail any such process to the surviving corporation at 147 Keystone Drive, Montgomeryville, PA 18936 with a copy to its registered agent: Jolley, Urga, Wirth, Woodbury & Standish; 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1600; Las Vegas, NV 89169; Attention: William Urga, Esq.





In witness whereof, said surviving corporation has caused this Certificate of Merger to be signed by an authorized officer, the 28th day of December, A.D. 2010.





PhotoMedex, Inc., a Nevada corporation





By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath


Name: Dennis M. McGrath


Its: President











,
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

y0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141203

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141203 COA: 289088 Genesee CC: 03-013153-FC JOHN MICHAEL CADARETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Cowart *v.*Aycock.

Atkinson, J.

A deed was signed June 15th, 1892, and recorded January 2d, 1893. The grantor died in January, 1910, leaving a widow and minor children. An action was instituted by the widow for herself as next friend for the minor children, as lieirs at law of the deceased, against the grantee, to cancel the deed as a cloud upon their title. According to the pleadings and evidence, the grantee did not know of the existence of the deed, nor did the widow until after the death of the grantor, when she discovered it among his private papers. The grantor had remained in possession of the property from the date of the deed until his death, using it as his own, and paying taxes on it. *Held:*

1. Grounds of a motion for new trial which complain of the admission of documentary evidence, but fail to set forth the evidence in form or substance, will not be considered.

2. The judge charged: “If there was no consideration, and it was not intended title should pass, and there was no delivery or acceptance of the deed, why, then, the title would not pass, and you would be authorized under the law to require the deed to be surrendered and to cancel the same. All of these facts and circumstances, gentlemen, are for you.” The deed recited a consideration, .and there was no evidence to the contrary. Under such circumstances the reference to “consideration” *433contained ill the charge was not apt, but the expression was used conjunctively with other words, which, when taken together, indicated that delivery of the deed was the fact the existence or non-existence of which would control the jury in rendering their verdict. Viewed in this light the charge was not prejudicial to the plaintiff in error.

February 12, 1913.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Sheppard. Bryan superior court. January 23, 1912.

*J. H. Smith*and *B. F. 0. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. F. Brannen, W. F. Slater,*and *Hines & Jordan,*contra.

*(a)*It was not error in another portion of the charge to instruct the jury that they would be authorized to find in favor of cancellation of the' deed if they should find that it was not delivered or accepted, and was not intended to convey the title to the land.

• 3. This case differs in its facts from that involved in *Ross*v. *Campbell,*. 73 *Ga.*309; but under the principles therein discussed the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

4. The judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing the grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beelc, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
1516.401-70 Award term incentives. ( a ) Award term incentives enable a contractor to become eligible for additional periods of performance under a current contract by achieving prescribed performance measures under that contract.
( b ) Award term incentives are designed to motivate contractors to provide superior performance. Superior performance must be defined in the Award Term Incentive Plan. Accordingly, the prescribed performance measures, *i.e.,* acceptable quality levels (AQL), which must be achieved by a contractor to become eligible for an award term will be in excess of the AQLs necessary for Government acceptance of contract deliverables, unless rationale is documented that such service is beyond the contractor's capability or control.
( c ) The Award Term Incentive Plan sets forth the evaluation process, including the evaluation criteria and performance measures, and serves as the basis for award term decisions. The Award Term Incentive Plan may be unilaterally revised by the Government.
( d ) Award term incentives may be used in conjunction with options. The Federal Acquisition Regulation does not prescribe a level of performance for the exercise of options, as contrasted with award term incentives, which should require superior performance as discussed in paragraph (b) of this subsection. Award term incentive periods will follow any option periods.
( e ) ( 1 ) The Government has the unilateral right not to grant or to cancel award term incentive periods and the associated award term incentive plans if— ( i ) The Contracting Officer has failed to initiate an award term incentive period, regardless of whether the contractor's performance permitted the Contracting Officer to consider initiating the award term incentive period; or
( ii ) The contractor has failed to achieve the performance measures for the corresponding evaluation period; or
( iii ) The Government notifies the contractor in writing it does not have funds available for the award term; or
( iv ) The Government no longer has a need for the award term incentive period at or before the time an award term incentive period is to commence.
( 2 ) When an award term incentive period is not granted or cancelled, any— ( i ) Prior award term incentive periods for which the contractor remains otherwise eligible are unaffected.
( ii ) Subsequent award term incentive periods are thereby also cancelled.
( f ) Award term incentives may be appropriate for any type of service contract.
[73 FR 1980, Jan. 11, 2008, as amended at 85 FR 17506, Mar. 30, 2020]
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications

Table A-5.Concentrations, ng/g (ppb) wet weight, of chlorinated contaminants in livers of juvenile chinook salmon sampled in 1989. - a,b,c,d,e,g,h 

Footnotes follow 

Table A-5. Continued.Concentrations, ng/g (ppb) wet weight, of chlorinated contaminants in livers of juvenile chinook salmon sampled in 1989. - a,b,c,d,e,g,h 

Footnotes follow 

Table A-5. Continued. Concentrations, ng/g (ppb) wet weight, of chlorinated contaminants in livers of juvenile chinook salmon sampled in 1989. - a,b,c,d,e,g,h 

Footnotes:

a The concentrations of the analytes and the percent recovery of the surrogate standard were calculated using tetrachloro-m-xylene as the internal standard.

b The "less than" symbol (<) indicates that the analyte was not detected in concentrations above the stated value. 

c Concentrations and initial identifications were determined using gas chromatography (GC) with electron capture detection (ECD).

d Concentrations less than 10 are rounded to one significant figure; concentrations greater than 10 are rounded to two significant figures.

e Percent recovery for the internal standard (surrogate) averaged 100%, CV = 5%, n = 31. Percent recovery of the surrogate includes quality control samples.

f Aldrin coelutes with an unknown compound. The concentration would not be higher than the stated value.

g The concentrations of the analytes were calculated using the surrogate standard 4,4'-dibromooctafluorobiphenyl so that the data can be compared to previously analyzed data.

h The percent recovery of the surrogate standard was calculated using the GC internal standard tetrachloro-m-xylene.

i Standard reference material from the National Institute of Science and Technology.

j RSD is the relative standard deviation which is the standard deviation divided by the mean and expressed as a percent. 

Table of Contents