alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:                March 3, 2006 | /s/ Paul                A.                Farr                                   Paul                A. FarrSenior                Vice PresidentPPL                Energy Supply, LLC |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit
      32(f)







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 on Form 10-Q of Florida Power Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter
      M. Scott III, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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), 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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      3, 2006








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
216.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts. ( 1 ) *Award-fee pool.* The award-fee pool is the total available award fee for each evaluation period for the life of the contract. The contracting officer shall perform an analysis of appropriate fee distribution to ensure at least 40 percent of the award fee is available for the final evaluation so that the award fee is appropriately distributed over all evaluation periods to incentivize the contractor throughout performance of the contract. The percentage of award fee available for the final evaluation may be set below 40 percent if the contracting officer determines that a lower percentage is appropriate, and this determination is approved by the head of the contracting activity (HCA). The HCA may not delegate this approval authority.
( 2 ) *Award-fee evaluation and payments.* Award-fee payments other than payments resulting from the evaluation at the end of an award-fee period are prohibited. (This prohibition does not apply to base-fee payments.) The fee-determining official's rating for award-fee evaluations will be provided to the contractor within 45 calendar days of the end of the period being evaluated. The final award-fee payment will be consistent with the fee-determining official's final evaluation of the contractor's overall performance against the cost, schedule, and performance outcomes specified in the award-fee plan.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* ( i ) The cost-plus-award-fee contract shall not be used— ( A ) To avoid— ( 1 ) Establishing cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts when the criteria for cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts apply; or
( 2 ) Developing objective targets so a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract can be used; or
( B ) For either engineering development or operational system development acquisitions that have specifications suitable for simultaneous research and development and production, except a cost-plus-award-fee contract may be used for individual engineering development or operational system development acquisitions ancillary to the development of a major weapon system or equipment, where— ( 1 ) It is more advantageous; and
( 2 ) The purpose of the acquisition is clearly to determine or solve specific problems associated with the major weapon system or equipment.
( ii ) Do not apply the weighted guidelines method to cost-plus-award-fee contracts for either the base (fixed) fee or the award fee.
( iii ) The base fee shall not exceed three percent of the estimated cost of the contract exclusive of the fee.
( 4 ) See PGI 216.405-2 for guidance on the use of cost-plus-award-fee contracts.
[76 FR 8305, Feb. 14, 2011]
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:526
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:527
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:528
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:529
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:530
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:531
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:532
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:533
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:534
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:535
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:536
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:537
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:538
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:539
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:540
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:541
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:542
Case: 1:12-cv-03197 Document #: 28 Filed: 07/26/13 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:543
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1365 

ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. 

and GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC. and MEDTRONIC USA, INC., 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

ON MOTION 

Before MAYER, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PROST, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al. (ACS) move to dismiss Medtronic 

Vascular, Inc. et al.’s (Medtronic) appeal as premature. Medtronic opposes. ACS 

replies. 

 ACS brought suit against Medtronic in the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware for patent infringement. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. 

Medtronic Vascular, Inc., No. 98-CV-80 (May 3, 2007). A jury found that Medtronic 

infringed ACS’s patents and that the patents were not invalid. The district court entered 

“judgment” in favor of ACS, and Medtronic appeals. Pending at the district court are, 

inter alia, ACS's request for damages and its claim for injunctive relief. 

 ACS asserts that the appeal is premature because the district court has not yet 

adjudicated its request for an injunction and thus the district court’s “judgment” is not 
final except for an accounting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2). ACS cites the Fifth 

Circuit’s decision in Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Escambia Chemical Corp., 430 F.2d 920, 930 

(5th Cir. 1970) for the proposition that a case is not final except for an accounting if an 

unadjudicated request for injunctive relief remains pending before the district court. 

Medtronic contends that ACS has not yet filed a motion for a permanent injunction and 

thus the request is not properly before the district court. As such, Medtronic argues that 

the present appeal is not premature and should not be dismissed. 

 We agree with ACS that Medtronic’s appeal is premature because ACS's request 

for permanent injunctive relief in its complaint remains pending and thus the case is not 

final except for an accounting. See PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1365 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) (although appeal was premature under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) because 

request for injunctive relief had not been decided, appeal was treated as timely when 

district court decided claim for injunctive relief during pendency of appeal); Nystrom v. 

Trex Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“If a case is not fully adjudicated as to 

all claims for all parties and there is no express determination that there is no just 

reason for delay or express direction for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the 

parties or claims, there is no final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(1) and therefore 

no jurisdiction”). Thus, Medtronic’s appeal is premature and must be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) ACS’s motion to dismiss is granted. 

2007-1365 2
2007-1365 3

 (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 FOR THE COURT 

 August 1, 2007 /s/ Sharon Prost 

 Date Sharon Prost 

 Circuit Judge 

cc: J. Michael Jakes, Esq. 

 George M. Sirilla, Esq. 

s17 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 1, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to my knowledge 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/    Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex Trevino, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerMay 30, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be
retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Joseph A. Murphy et al., Appellants, v Anthony Telesha et al., Appellants, and Kenneth M. Gang et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In a medical malpractice action, the appeals are from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 4, 1978, as granted the motion of defendants Gang and Kasoff to vacate the determination of the medical malpractice panel and directed the appointment of a new panel to conduct a hearing *de novo.*(We deem leave to appeal to have been granted by the order of this court dated October 20, 1978, which granted a stay.) Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. It is incumbent upon an attorney to inform his clients of the composition of the medical malpractice panel which has been convened in his case, so that timely objection thereto can be made (see Judiciary Law, § 148-a, subd 2, par [d]; 22 NYCRR 684.4 [c]). Where, however, the untimely revelation of these facts leads to the discovery of circumstances which may tend to cast doubt upon the integrity of the panel’s findings, counsel’s neglect should not be permitted to operate to his client’s prejudice, be it real or apparent. The fact no less than the appearance of impartiality is a valued attribute of the medical malpractice panels which must be preserved in defense of the statutory scheme, and when, to that end, a finding must be vacated and a *de novo*hearing conducted due to counsel’s omission, this court in the future may well consider the imposition of appropriate costs upon counsel personally. On the facts of the instant case, it is our opinion that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in vacating the findings of the medical malpractice panel which had been convened herein and in directing a hearing *de novo*(see *De Camp v Good Samaritan Hosp.,*66 AD2d 766 [2d Dept, decided Dec. 4, 1978]). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 106–409—NOV. 1, 2000 114 STAT. 1787

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4068 (S. 2406):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 19, considered and passed House.

Oct. 19, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–409

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for an additional 3

years the special immigrant religious worker program.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Workers Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RELIGIOUS

WORKER PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended by

striking ‘‘2000,’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘2003,’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)

shall take effect on October 1, 2000.

Approved November 1, 2000.

8 USC 1101 note.

8 USC 1101 note.

Religious

Workers Act of

2000.

Nov. 1, 2000

[H.R. 4068]
**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

 

I,William L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended January 25, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and

 

2.               theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  March 10, 2008 |   |   |   |   | /s/   William  L. Bridgford |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   |   | William  L. Bridgford, Chairman            |
|                        |   |   |   |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)             |

 

----
EXHIBIT
      32.2


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 on Form 10-KSB of Secured Digital Storage
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the SEC (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
      indicated below, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





This
      written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to such Report.
      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
      SEC or its staff upon request.





By:
            /s/
                Patrick J. GainerChief
                Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)April
                15, 2008
#### NEW YORK BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS v. BOUGHAN & CO. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Account Stated—Test—Meetino of Minds.

The test of an account stated is that the minds of the parties met as to the amount due, and hence, where defendants never agreed to the account as presented, but approved the bills at a smaller sum, to which plaintiff did not assent, there was no account stated.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 1, Cent. Dig. Account Stated, §§ 16, 17.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Actions by the New York Board of Fire Underwriters against Boughan & Company. From two judgments dismissing the complaints, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD .and DOW-LING, JJ.

Rumséy, Sheppard & Ingalls (John S. Sheppard, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

John T. Fenlon, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The test of an account stated is that the minds of the parties met as to the amount due. It is clear that there was no such "meeting of minds here. The defendants’ letter of December 7, 1904, may well have been understood by plaintiff as stating that the organization represented by Boughan & Co. had assented to the account or bill presented by plaintiff; but the fact was otherwise. The defendant organizations had never agreed to the account as presented, but had approved the bills at a smaller sum. " To this smaller sum, however, the plaintiff had never assented, and does not now assent. Hence as to neither sum have the minds of the parties met.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Michael H. Goldberg

Michael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2011/s/ Scott F. Stephens

Scott F. StephensVice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2011
   E-3
234

Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury Studies

Individual Data and Quality Assurance Results

CASE NARRATIVE

Toxicopathic Injury in Flatfish

DNA Adducts

DNA Adducts

Performance Evaluation

The PPL performance standard met 32P-labeing criteria.

Calibration

There were no deviations from the QA/SOP calibration criteria. All the calibration data

that were used to quantitate DNA adducts met the initial and continuing criteria

detailed in the “Commencement Bay Quality Assurance Plan” (QA Plan).

Method Blank

The acceptance criteria were met for the method blank.

Sample Duplicates

Two samples were processed and analyzed in duplicate. The relative percent differences (RPD)

for all analytes were less than 50%.

Commentary on Samples:

Missing sample analyses:

Several samples (n=6) were lost because sufficient DNA could not be extracted. In addition, nine

samples were lost because the chromatograms were not quantifiable.

Values reported that are less than 10 nmol/mol:

If the storage phosphor images of the radioactivity distribution on the chromatograms, are

sufficiently dean and distinct, then values less than 10 nmols DNA adducts/mol DNA for the

large diagonal radioactive zone containing adducts derived from polycyclic aromatic compounds

can be obtained. For the chromatography standards, the limit of detection for a single, well

resolved spot is 0.1 runol DNA adduct/mol DNA.
235
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-14891, 333-66377, and 333-66379 of QMS, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of
our report dated March 2, 2000 (March 20, 2000 as to the fifth paragraphs of
Note 8 and Note 20) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
QMS, Inc. and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
March 27, 2000
225.770-3 Exceptions. The prohibition in 225.770-2 does not apply to items acquired— ( a ) In connection with a visit to the People's Republic of China by a vessel or an aircraft of the U.S. armed forces;
( b ) For testing purposes; or
( c ) For the purpose of gathering intelligence.
[71 FR 53046, Sept. 8, 2006, as amended at 83 FR 66072, Dec. 21, 2018]
- P-12
- Carrera Universitaria
- Educación Para Adultos
- Derechos Civiles
- Educación Especial
- Noticias

----

La Ley Cada Estudiante Triunfa (Every Student Succeeds Act, "ESSA") fue firmada por el presidente Obama el 10 de diciembre de 2015. Esta medida bipartidista reautoriza la Ley de Educación Primaria y Secundaria (ESEA), la legislación de educación nacional que se compromete a la igualdad de oportunidades para todos los estudiantes de la nación, y vigente desde hace 50 años.

Ejemplos de preguntas que los padres y las familias pueden hacer para colaborar con los maestros y la escuela de sus hijos

ELEVAR LAS EXPECTATIVAS: Alcanzar la excelencia académica

ELEVEMOS LAS EXPECTATIVAS: Eliminar la escasez de maestros

ELEVAR LAS EXPECTATIVAS: Invertir en la salud mental y el bienestar de cada estudiante

ELEVAR LAS EXPECTATIVAS: Fomentar el éxito profesional

ELEVAR LAS EXPECTATIVAS: Dar a cada estudiante un camino hacia el multilingüismo

Estrategias para utilizar los fondos del Plan de Rescate Estadounidense para abordar el impacto del tiempo de instrucción perdido

La Ley Cada Estudiante Triunfa

Centro de Aprendizaje y Conocimiento en la Primera Infancia

Nunca es demasiado temprano para ayudar a que su hijo aprenda

Las ventajas de ser bilingüe: Información para maestros y cuidadores de bebes y niños pequeños

El Lenguaje en el Hogar y en la Comunidad

Consejos para los maestros y cuidadores de bebés y niños pequeños

Consejos para maestros de preescolar y proveedores de otros programas de educación infantil temprana

Estudiantes de limitado dominio del inglés

Qué es NAEP?

La Ley FERPA: Orientación para los padres PDF

Combatir acoso escolar

Como los padres pueden ayudar sus niños a triunfar PDF

Vea más información en españolCentro de Recursos de InformaciónTeléfono 1-800-872-5327 o 202-401-2000Correo electrónico