alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gertrude Baskevich, et al., Appellants, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 37879.)

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of claimant, Gertrude Baskevich, in the sum of $6,000 and in favor of claimant Zigmont Baskevich, in the sum of $2,500. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and new fundings and conclusions made. Memorandum: Claimant wife was injured when a tread on a flight of stairs maintained by respondent collapsed as a result of its decayed and deteriorated condition. The stairs ostensibly had been inspected by employees of respondent some six months before the accident. These facts were found by the trial court. The conclusion is irresistible that an adequate inspection would have disclosed the dangerous condition of the wooden stair tread. The contrary finding that the State was not negligent is against the weight of the credible evidence. *(Eason*v. *State of New York,*280 App. Div. 358.) The trial court made detailed findings as to the nature and extent of the damages sustained by claimants. We see no reason to remand the case for fixation of their monetary damages. (Cf. Court of Claims Act, § 24; *Blassman*v. *State of New York,*258 App, Div. 365, 367, revd. on other grounds 282 N. Y. 522.) We find claimant wife sustained damage of $6,000 and claimant husband sustained damage of $2,500. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing the claim on the merits.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
25.105 Critical components and critical items. ( a ) The following is a list of articles that have been determined to be a critical component or critical item and their respective preference factor(s). ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) The list of articles and preference factors in paragraph (a) of this section will be published in the Federal Register for public comment no less frequently than once every 4 years. Unsolicited recommendations for deletions from this list may be submitted at any time and should provide sufficient data and rationale to permit evaluation (*see* 1.502).
( c ) For determining reasonableness of cost for domestic end products that contain critical components or are critical items (*see* 25.106(c)).
[87 FR 12791, Mar. 7, 2022]
From: Fenske, Mary Jean

To: Aagenes, Jason D.; Hayden, Andrea J

Subject: Cost analysis spreadsheet

Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:11:56 PM

Attachments: SO2scrubbercost summaryDC.xls

Hi Jason and Andrea,

This is the cost analysis spreadsheet that was shared at the 10:30 meeting on Jan. 31 that you

participated in by phone. This evaluates the cost of adding a polishing scrubber to the existing

indurating lines. It compares the cost per ton of pollutant removed that was projected by the company

(last column) with the cost per ton of pollutant removed estimated by MPCA staff when "generic"

assumptions for water, labor, caustic, etc were used. The purpose was to see, even with these more

generic assumptions, do we arrive at the same conclusion as far as what BART might be?

Where the conclusion differs, we'll be working with the facility to take a closer look at the cost

assumptions provided by the facility. Right now, as we discussed at the meeting, we do need to take a

closer look at the cost assumptions for Utac's line 2. That's why I'm talking with you, Jason, about the

water cost and caustic costs that were assumed in the BARTanalysis. <<SO2scrubbercost

summaryDC.xls>>

Please call if you have questions. 

Mary Jean

Mary Jean Fenske, P.E.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

520 Lafayette Road N.

St. Paul, MN 55155

(651) 297-5472

e-mail: mary.jean.fenske@pca.state.mn.us
Minntac Cost

Emission 

Reduction Cost/ton

Company

Cost/ton

Line 3 Indurating Furnace $2,157,289 197.6 $10,917 $14,253

Line 4 Indurating Furnace $3,066,771 258.5 $11,864 $15,358

Line 5 Indurating Furnace $3,066,771 258.5 $11,864 $15,358

Line 6 Indurating Furnace $3,524,235 326.9 $10,781 $12,093

Line 7 Indurating Furnace $3,524,235 326.9 $10,781 $12,093

KeeTac

Indurating Furnace $4,133,029 570.3 $7,247 $8,870

Mittal

Indurating Furnace SV014 $2,354,952 26.9 $87,545 $82,989

Indurating Furnace SV015 $2,354,952 26.9 $87,545 $82,989

Indurating Furnace SV016 $2,354,952 26.9 $87,545 $82,989

Indurating Furnace SV017 $2,354,952 26.9 $87,545 $82,989

UTac

Line 1 Pellet Induration $2,886,232 8.3 $347,739 $384,402

Line 2 Pellet Induration $3,840,966 1649.8 $2,328 $3,361

HibTac

Line 1 Pellet Induration $3,952,596 121.3 $32,585 $36,762

Line 2 Pellet Induration $4,007,705 121.3 $33,040 $36,762

Line 3 Pellet Induration $4,083,642 121.3 $33,666 $36,762

Northshore

Line 11 Pellet Induration HE $2,414,882 17.2 $140,400 $139,872

Line 11 Pellet Induration WG $2,283,971 5.7 $400,697 $384,034

Line 12 Pellet Induration HE $2,414,882 15.8 $152,841 $152,149

Line 12 Pellet Induration WG $2,283,971 5.3 $430,938 $417,742
32.305 Loan guarantees for terminated contracts. ( a ) The purpose of guaranteed loans; i.e., to provide for financing based on the borrower's recoverable investment in defense production contracts, may also apply to contracts that have been terminated (partially or totally) for the convenience of the Government. Guaranteed loans also may be made before such termination if it is known that termination of particular contracts for the convenience of the Government is about to occur. These loans are expected to provide necessary financing pending termination settlements and payments. They may also finance continuing performance of defense production contracts that are eligible for guaranteed loans.
( b ) The procedure for such guarantees is substantially the same as that outlined in 32.304, except that certificates of eligibility are not required for ( 1 ) contracts that have been totally terminated or
( 2 ) the terminated portion of contracts that have been partially terminated. The agency shall take precautions necessary to avoid Government losses and to ensure the loans will be self-liquidating from the proceeds of defense production contracts.
( c ) Loan guarantees for contract termination financing shall not be provided before specific contract terminations are certain.
# C_2018217EN.01000101.xml

| 21.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 June 2018

(2018/C 217/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1578 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4525 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87878 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2755 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1537 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 125,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4693 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,835 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 324,15 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3152 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6695 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,4943 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5688 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5398 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0847 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6853 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5718 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 281,98 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8367 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4953 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3836 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 320,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6318 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,864 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,6225 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,987 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3273 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,6794 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,8600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1578

JPY

Japanese yen

127,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4525

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87878

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2755

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1537

ISK

Iceland króna

125,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4693

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,835

HUF

Hungarian forint

324,15

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3152

RON

Romanian leu

4,6695

TRY

Turkish lira

5,4943

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5688

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5398

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0847

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6853

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5718

KRW

South Korean won

1 281,98

ZAR

South African rand

15,8367

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4953

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3836

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 320,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6318

PHP

Philippine peso

61,864

RUB

Russian rouble

73,6225

THB

Thai baht

37,987

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3273

MXN

Mexican peso

23,6794

INR

Indian rupee

78,8600

---

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

1

Source

---
American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program

FY 2011 Grantees

PR Number TCCU Part A Grantee State

FY 2011 

Award 

Amount

P031T110333 Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College MI $500,000

P031T110334 Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College MI $500,000

Total Award Amount Part A Grants: $1,000,000

PR Number TCCU Part F Grantee State

FY 2011 

Award 

Amount

P031T110433 Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College MI $500,000

P031T110434 Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College MI $500,000

Total Award Amount Part F Grants: $1,000,000

Total Award Amount for New TCCU Grants: $2,000,000

[10/18/2011]
# GAANN Grantees 2014

david.e.cliffel@vanderbilt.edu

nydia.flores@gse.rutgers.edu

paul.laybourn@colostate.edu

rmkelly@eos.ncsu.edu

accorsi@engr.uconn.edu

duxbury@msu.edu
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO 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-K of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the
Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Kenneth E. Edge    
|Kenneth E. Edge        
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 15, 2007         

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Harry W. SPEAR, Appellant, v. Peter M. ROBERTS, Appellee.

No. 82-1404.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 1982.

Decided June 9, 1982.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1982.

Harry W. Spear, pro se.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

*769PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to set aside a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff claims that defendant wrongfully deprived him of an invention, either by fraud or by breach of a confidential relationship, and that he is entitled to an award of damages. While an appeal was pending to this Court from the District Court’s initial dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff submitted an additional affidavit. This Court suggested that the affidavit, which had not previously been presented to the District Court, should be filed with that Court in support of a motion under Rule 60(b), and plaintiff adopted that suggestion. The District Court, after examining the affidavit, reaffirmed its previous conclusion.

The facts are fully set out in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate1 to whom the District Court referred the case, and we need not repeat them here. In sum, the Magistrate held that the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, even when given the liberal construction that modern rules of pleading require, simply failed to allege facts from which the necessary elements either of fraud or of a confidential relationship could be inferred. The District Court2 agreed and adopted the Magistrate’s recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.3

The appeal thus presents the single issue whether plaintiff’s complaint alleged facts from which a claim under the Minnesota law of fraud or confidential relationships could be reasonably inferred. We have carefully considered the text of plaintiff’s complaint, as well as his *pro se*brief submitted in this Court, and we are not persuaded that the District Court erred. We normally defer to the district courts’ interpretation of the law óf their own states, and we know of no Minnesota state-court authority that would cast any doubt on what the District Court did here.

It is possible that, if the facts alleged in the complaint are true, defendant may be in some fashion morally obligated to plaintiff, but we cannot say that the District Court committed any error of law in dismissing the complaint. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

1

. The Hon. J. Earl Cudd, United States Magistrate for the District of Minnesota.

2

. The Hon. Harry H. McLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

3

. The Magistrate had also recommended that the complaint be dismissed for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but the District Court rejected this recommendation, and it is no longer at issue. For this reason, it is immaterial that the Magistrate failed to resolve a conflict in affidavits between plaintiff and defendant as to whether defendant had ever in fact been in the State of Minnesota.
NUMBER 13-16-00425-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PAMELA MANNING, Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RANDALL COTHES, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 

MCDONALD'S OF BEEVILLE, 

MCDONALD'S #6798, MCDONALDS 

CORP. 042/0323, Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant’s brief in the above cause was due on September 19, 2016. On

October 3, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely 

filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas 
2

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of

this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not 

significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response 

has been received from appellant. 

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain the failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file the brief, or file the brief. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b)(c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

10th day of November, 2016.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian  Corporation  (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  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
       period  ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
       Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the
       requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
       1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Date:  July 12, 2007                      /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                          -------------------------
                                          Marvin F. Romanow
                                          Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc. and shall be retained by Nexen Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




Board of Directors
First Colonial Group, Inc.


         We have issued our report dated January 18, 2002, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of First
Colonial Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statements of First Colonial Group, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No.
33-21126, effective July 6, 1989) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-84400, effective
September 17, 1994; File No. 333-24745, effective April 8, 1997; File No.
333-65426, effective July 19, 2001).




Grant Thornton LLP
Philadelphia, PA  19103
March 27, 2002
35.015 Contracts for research with educational institutions and nonprofit organizations. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) When the R&D work is not defined precisely and the contract states only a period during which work is conducted (that is, a specific time for achievement of results is not required), research contracts with educational institutions and nonprofit organizations shall— ( i ) State that the contractor bears primary responsibility for the research;
( ii ) Give ( A ) the name of the principal investigator (or project leader), if the decision to contract is based on that particular individual's research effort and management capabilities, and
( B ) the contractor's estimate of the amount of time that individual will devote to the work;
( iii ) Provide that the named individual shall be closely involved and continuously responsible for the conduct of the work;
( iv ) Provide that the contractor must obtain the contracting officer's approval to change the principal investigator (or project leader);
( v ) Require that the contractor advise the contracting officer if the principal investigator (or project leader) will, or plans to, devote substantially less effort to the work than anticipated; and
( vi ) Require that the contractor obtain the contracting officer's approval to change the phenomenon under study, the stated objectives of the research, or the methodology.
( 2 ) If a research contract *does* provide precise objectives or a specific date for achievement of results, the contracting officer may include in the contract the requirements set forth in subparagraph (1) above, if it is necessary for the Government to exercise oversight and approval over the avenues of approach, methods, or schedule of work.
( b ) *Basic agreements.* ( 1 ) A basic agreement should be negotiated if the number of contracts warrants such an agreement (see 16.702). Basic agreements should be reviewed and updated at least annually.
( 2 ) To promote uniformity and consistency in dealing with educational institutions and nonprofit organizations, agencies are encouraged to use basic agreements of other agencies.
[48 FR 42352, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 15153, Apr. 15, 1991]
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of CFO 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-K of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Donald H. Wilson, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Donald H. Wilson   
|Donald H. Wilson       
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 15, 2006         



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.