alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(1) a part B institution (a historically Black college or university) (§322 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §1061);(2) a Hispanic-serving institution (§502 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §1101a);(3) a Tribal College or University (§316 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §1059c);(4) an Alaska Native-serving institution or a Native Hawaiian-serving institution (§317(b) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §1059d(b);(5) a Predominantly Black Institution (§§318(b) and 371(c)(9) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1059e(b) and 1067q(c)(9));(6) an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution (§§ 320(b) and 371(c)(2) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. §§1059g(b) and 1067q(c)(2); or(7) a Native American-serving nontribal institution (§§319(b) and 371(c)(8) of the HEA; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1059f(b) and 1067q(c)(8). 

FIPSE Home
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

(Filed: July 11, 2016) 

No. 14-482V 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

GARLAND L. SNYDER and *

JENNIFER D. SNYDER, parents and *

natural guardians of J.L.S., a minor * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

child, * Acute Disseminated 

 * Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”);

Petitioners, * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine. 

 * 

v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Isaiah R. Kalinowski, Esq., Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. 

Michael P. Milmoe, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master: 

 On June 4, 2014, Garland L. Snyder and Jennifer D. Snyder (“petitioners”) filed a 

petition for compensation on behalf of their minor child, J.L.S., under the National Vaccine 

Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioners allege that J.L.S. developed Acute Disseminated 

Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on November 9, 

 

1

 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this 

decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In 

accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other 

information, that satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule 

requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the 

identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access. 

2

 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of 

citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).
2

2011. See Stipulation, filed July 11, 2016, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that the influenza 

immunization caused J.L.S.’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

 Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On July 11, 2016, the parties 

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms. 

 

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment: 

A lump sum of $75,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioners, Garland 

Snyder and Jennifer Snyder. This amount represents compensation for all damages 

that would be available under § 300aa-15(a). 

 I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount 

and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in 

accordance with this decision.3

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth 

 Mindy Michaels Roth 

 Special Master 

 

 

3

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
**AGENDA Hybrid Coatings**  **– EPA Meeting**  **Non -**  **Isocyanate Polyurethane Foam**

**July 16, 2014**

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Introductions 2. EPA explanation of current initiatives/action plans and timing for isocyanates in regards to PU coatings and foam 3. HCT presentation on company, HNIPU technology, market penetration, foam development 4. Discussion on next steps for development of HNIPU foam, potential federal program funding and green chemis try recognition/award applications
# C_2017162EN.01000101.xml

| 23.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8379 — SGID/Hellenic Republic/IPTO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 162/01)

On 10 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8379. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8379. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1

Eastern Division

Theresa Monturano, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05300

Honorable Andrea R. Wood

Eric P. Lefkofsky, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, April 7, 2017:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Agreed Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice [61] is granted. Enter order. Mailed notice(ef, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

THERESA STUMPF, ) 

on behalf of herself and a class, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 12-cv-4688 

 vs. ) 

 ) Judge Gettleman 

PYOD, LLC, and ) 

WELTMAN, WEINBERG & ) 

REIS CO., LPA, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

STIPULATION

 Defendants, PYOD, LLC and Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, stipulate that they 

will not make any offer or tender to Plaintiff Theresa Stumpf, including but not limited to an 

offer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, that would have the effect of mooting Plaintiff's claims in 

this matter on behalf of the putative class defined in the Complaint. 

However, this stipulation does not preclude Defendants from serving a Rule 68 offer in 

the following circumstances: (1) If Defendants send all counsel of record for Plaintiff an e-mail 

notifying Plaintiff that Defendants intend to serve a Rule 68 offer on an individual basis, then 

Defendants may serve such a Rule 68 offer beginning on the seventh day after the e-mail 

notification was sent (but not before such time); (2) Defendants may serve a Rule 68 offer on a 

class wide basis at any time. In consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiff stipulates to withdraw 

the pending motion for class certification without prejudice. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:66
2 

Respectfully Submitted, 

THERESA STUMPF 

By: s/ Catherine A. Ceko 

Catherine A. Ceko 

One of her Attorneys 

 

Daniel A. Edelman 

Cathleen M. Combs 

James O. Latturner 

Catherine A. Ceko 

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & 

 GOODWIN, LLC 

120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 739-4200 

FAX: (312) 419-0379 

PYOD, LLC. 

By: s/ David A. Maas

David A. Maas 

One of its Attorneys 

David A. Maas 

Gary S. Caplan 

REED SMITH LLP 

10 S. Wacker Drive, 40th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 207-1000 

FAX: (312) 207-6400 

WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA. 

By: s/ Nabil G. Foster

Nabil G. Foster 

One of its Attorneys 

Nabil G. Foster 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 

222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 704-3000 

FAX: (312) 704-3001 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:67
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Catherine A. Ceko, hereby certify that on July 10, 2012, a true and accurate 

copy of the foregoing document was filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system and notification of 

such filing was sent to the following parties: 

Nabil G. Foster 

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com 

David A. Maas 

dmaas@reedsmith.com 

Gary S. Caplan 

gcaplan@reedsmith.com 

s/ Catherine A. Ceko

Catherine A. Ceko 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 20 Filed: 07/10/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:68
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.32

                                 April 26, 2000

Mr. Evan Guillemin
dELiA*s, Inc.
435 Hudson St.
New York, N.Y. 10014

Dear Evan:

    Allfirst Bank hereby agrees to waive provision 3(q) of the Construction
Loan Agreement dated August 6, 1999, among Allfirst Bank, dELiA*s
Distribution Company and dELiA*s, Inc. ("the Loan Agreement), through May 5,
2001 only, upon payment of a $5,000 covenant waiver fee. This provision
requires a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.4 to 1.0. All other
provisions of the loan documents remain unchanged.

    In addition, dELiA*s agrees to provide Allfirst with notice of any event
of default described in section 11 (a)(viii) of the Loan Agreement with any
other lender with 5 business days of such default.

    Please indicate your acceptance of the above by signing and returning to
me the enclosed copy of this letter.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 /s/ Keith A. Mummert
                                 ------------------------------
                                     Senior Vice President

<PAGE>
                                      -2-

                                                                 April 26, 2000

    We hereby agree to and accept the above terms and conditions.

                                 DELiA*s

   4/26/00                       /s/ Evan Guillemin
-------------                    -------------------------------
    Dated                            Evan Guillemin, President


                                 DELiA*s Distribution Company

   4/26/00                       /s/ Evan Guillemin
-------------                    -------------------------------
    Dated                            Evan Guillemin, President
,, 

`~ ~ HDES 

Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner 

April 3, 2008 

David Conroy 

EPA - New England, Region I 

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

As you are aware, sections 110(a) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide procedural, 

timing and infrastructure requirements related to compliance with the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In 2005, the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

entered into a Consent Decree with Earth Justice which obligates EPA to determine whether 

states have made submissions necessary to meet the 110(a) (1) and (2) requirements for the fine 

particulate matter (PMZ.5) NAAQS by October 5, 2008 . To meet this obligation, EPA issued a 

guidance memo on October 2, 2007 directing states to review existing State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) and, if the existing fine particulate matter SIP is adequate to meet the 110(a) 

requirements, to certify that adequacy in a letter to EPA. This letter will serve as the 

certification for New Hampshire. 

The guidance memo identifies fourteen elements required by sections 110(a) (1) and (2) . Those 

elements and the sections of the New Hampshire program that are consistent with those 

elements are identified in the attached table. The New Hampshire SIP was originally submitted 

to EPA on January 27, 1972 and has had numerous revisions since that date. New Hampshire's 

EPA approved SIP, which is published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 52 

Subpart EE, explicitly fulfills most of the requirements of sections 110(a) (1) and (2). Other 

section 110(a) (1) and (2) requirements are fulfilled in applicable chapters and parts from the 

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) pertaining to the duties and powers of the 

Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) as well as applicable 

chapters and parts from the New Hampshire Rules Governing the Control of Air Pollution, NH 

Administrative Rules Env-A 100 et seq. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (603) 271-1088 or Charles H. Martone of my 

staff at (603) 271-1089. 

Sincerely, 

15~j di~~4 /1,/ 

Robert R. Scott YK 

Director 

Air Resources Division 

Cc: Anne Arnold, EPA New England, Region I 

Jeffrey T. Underhill, DES 

Andrew M. Bodnarik, DES 

Charles H. Martone, DES 

The State of New Hampshire 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

DES Web site : www.des.nh.gov 

P.O. Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 

Telephone : (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDD Access : Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
OCR conducted a compliance review  to determine whether the University of Montana Western maintains programs,  activities and facilities that are accessible to persons with mobility  impairments.  OCR conducted an on-site review of the University’s  residence halls, classroom, athletics, and administration buildings on the main  campus and off-campus athletic and conference facilities.  On July 21,  2010, the University and OCR entered into a settlement agreement resolving  issues raised in the compliance review.  The agreement requires the  University to provide notices in publications of University programs,  buildings, and facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities.   For those programs and activities located in inaccessible buildings that were  constructed prior to the effective date of accessibility codes, the agreement  requires the University to provide notice to individuals of the methods  utilized by the university to achieve program accessibility.  For  structures constructed after the effective date of applicable access codes, the  agreement requires the University to make specific alterations to multiple  buildings and facilities to ensure compliance with ADAAG or UFAS.  ***Read    the Resolution Letter***PDF (298K) | ***Read the Compliance Agreement***PDF (221K)

Top
# C_2017175EN.01000102.xml

| 2.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8448 — Hellman & Friedman/Allfunds Bank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 175/02)

On 24 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8448. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8448. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David A. DeLorenzo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Dole Food Company, 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.



/S/    DAVID A. DELORENZODavid A. DeLorenzoPresident and Chief Executive Officer


February 23, 2012
May 5, 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: SHARP 29 CORPORATION dba Aloha State Sales

Case No. 2012WP700051 FDMS No. FAA 2013-1084 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

# RECEIVED APR 142014 

# HEARING DOCKET

1. We are without sufficient knowledge or informationto comment regarding a Shipper Inspection ofAloha State Sales ("Aloha") on or aboutJanuary 

### 9, 2012 

### by Federal Aviation Administration {"FAA") Special Agent Velma Fish. No current employees ofAloha recall or have specific knowledge ofthe inspection visit. 2. We are without sufficient knowledge or informationto comment on FAA Special Agent Velma Fish review, incident to said inspection, ofashipper's declaration for dangerous goods dated Aprill, 2011 for ashipmentto Kahului Maui, Hawaii (AirWaybill No. 68701408540.) The review did nottake place in the presence ofany Aloha employees. 3. We acknowledgethatthe said shipper's declaration for dangerous goods dated April4, 2011 was completed and signed 

### by Aloha employee Michael Alexander. 4. We are without sufficient knowledge orinformation to comment on FAA Special Agent Velma Fish' request for shipping papers forthe shipment referenced in the said shipper's declaration for dangerous goods. No current employees ofAloha have specific knowledge of FAA Special Agent Fish visit or request for shipping papers. 5. Aloha did retain afile ofshipping papers that it considered adequate to meet requirements. However, no responsible management employee recalls FAA Special Agent Fish visit or her requestfor copies.

James Sharp, V.P.Original and one copy mailed to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Document Clerk, AGC-430 Copy sent 

### by email (as encouraged 

### by Amended Procedural Order) to: Lisa 

### J. Toscano, Complainant's Council Office ofthe Regional Council, Western

Pacific Region, AWP- 7 Federal Aviation Administration

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, 

### S.E.(Ell-310) Washington D.C. 

### 20590 Attn: Patricia Matthews, StaffAssistant
#### BEATTYS, Respondent, v. WILEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by George D. Beattys, as trustee in bankruptcy, etc., against Wilfred Wiley.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Flow
International Corporation, a Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K/A for the year ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas P. Fletcher, Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P.
FLETCHER                                      
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer January 31, 2006
# C_2016442EN.01000201.xml

| 29.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 442/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 442/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 November 2016

(2016/C 442/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0588 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,25 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4389 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85303 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7798 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0751 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0848 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,044 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,65 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4194 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5150 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,6282 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4194 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4242 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2117 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4991 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5114 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 243,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,7014 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3150 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5368 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 325,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7249 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,785 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,8075 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,662 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5909 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,7570 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,7610 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0588

JPY

Japanese yen

119,25

DKK

Danish krone

7,4389

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85303

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7798

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0751

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0848

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,044

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,65

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4194

RON

Romanian leu

4,5150

TRY

Turkish lira

3,6282

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4194

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4242

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2117

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4991

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5114

KRW

South Korean won

1 243,58

ZAR

South African rand

14,7014

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3150

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5368

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 325,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7249

PHP

Philippine peso

52,785

RUB

Russian rouble

68,8075

THB

Thai baht

37,662

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5909

MXN

Mexican peso

21,7570

INR

Indian rupee

72,7610

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---