alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 ! (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 " (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 # (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 $ )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 $

0 . * 4 5 2 . 0 . (

6 ( . 7 *

6 8 9 . ' 2 : . 2 ' ( ' (

; : . 2 '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / . 0 1 . 2 #

, # 3 $ !

9 . < 8 / = . > ? @ ? > > A B A C C D > E F 3 G ? & H D C D C I I ? C @ E B D - A
#### The State ex rel. United Screw *&*Bolt Corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant and Cross-Appellee; Gatson, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. United Screw & Bolt Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 144.]

(No. 96-2304

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Calfee, Halter & Griswold L.L.P.*and *William L.S. Ross,*for appellee and cross-appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *David J. Kovach,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellant and cross-appellee.

*Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy*and *Marc J. Jaffy; Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the order of the Industrial Commission is reinstated.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent and would affirm the court of appeals.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JASON WAYNE MCDIVITT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-3773-MCR/MJF

KILOLO KAJAKAZI,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated January 31, 2023. (ECF No. 29). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have 

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Petitioner’s “Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 

406(B),” (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.

Case 3:20-cv-03773-MCR-MJF Document 34 Filed 04/21/23 Page 1 of 2
3. The Commissioner shall promptly disburse to Petitioner $23,408.46.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of April 2023.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03773-MCR-MJF Document 34 Filed 04/21/23 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MANOJ KUMAR JHA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1; 1:16-cv-03449-ELH)

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manoj Kumar Jha, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Manoj Kumar Jha seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jha has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Jha’s 

motion to suspend the briefing schedule pending issuance of a certificate of appealability, 

and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Order filed August 14, 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00642

- CV

____________ DEBORAH MOHAMED , Appellant

V.

SHAFFIN ALI MOHAMED, Appellee

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 2003

- 39225



### O R D E R The clerk’s record was filed August 7, 2018. Our review has determined that
a relevant item may have been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain an Order signed June 28, 20 18.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before August 30, 2018, containing the Order signed June 28, 2018.If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to

file a suppl emental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Consent of Grant Thornton LLP

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated December 8, 2000,  accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements and have  incorporated  herein by reference or included in
the Annual  Report of  Microlog  Corporation,  on Form 10-K,  for the year ended
October 31, 2000. We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference of said
reports in the Registration  Statement of Microlog  Corporation on Form S-8 (No.
333-84375  dated August 3, 1999,  333-69025  dated December 16, 1998,  333-07981
dated July 11,  1996,  333-34094  dated  March 30,  1990,  and  333-30965  dated
September 11, 1989).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Vienna, Virginia
January 29, 2001
#### § 29.6131 Scrap (S Group).

A byproduct of unstemmed and stemmed tobacco. Scrap accumulates from handling tobacco in farm buildings, warehouses, packing and conditioning plants, and stemmeries.

| U.S. grades | Grade names and specifications |
| --- | --- |
| S | Loose, tangled, whole, or broken unstemmed leaves, or the web portion of tobacco leaves reduced to scrap by any process. |
#### § 29.68 Advance information.

Upon the request of an applicant for whom tobacco has been inspected, sampled, or weighed and certificated under the Act, all or any part of the contents of such certificate may be tel- egraphed or telephoned to him as his expense. Information relative to grade or other determinations contained or to be contained in a certificate shall not be divulged by an inspector, sampler, or weigher to any person other than an interested party or his agent without the approval of the Director, and such information shall not be furnished an interested party before the certificate is issued.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03522

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 275
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 275.6 Management units. ( a ) *Establishment of management units.* For the purpose of ME reviews, State agencies may, subject to FNS approval, establish “management units” which are different from project areas designated by FNS for participation in the program. For example, State-established welfare districts, regions or other administrative structures within a State may be so designated. Management units can be designated as either large, medium, or small for purposes of frequency of review. However, establishment of management units solely for the purpose of reducing the frequency of review will not be approved by FNS.
( b ) *FNS approval of management units.* State agencies shall submit requests for establishment of management units to FNS, which shall have final authority for approval of such units as well as any changes in those previously approved by FNS. ( 1 ) The following minimum criteria must be met prior to requesting FNS approval: ( i ) The proposed management unit must correspond with existing State-established welfare districts, regions, or other administrative structures; and
( ii ) The unit must have supervisory control over SNAP operations within that geographic area and have authority for implementation of corrective action.
( 2 ) In submitting the request for FNS approval, the State agency shall include the following information regarding the proposed management unit: ( i ) That the proposed management unit meets the minimum criteria described in paragraphs (b)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section;
( ii ) Geographic coverage, including the names of the counties/project areas within the unit and the identification (district or region number) and location (city) of the office which has supervisory control over the management unit;
( iii ) SNAP participation, including the number of persons and number of households;
( iv ) The number of certification offices;
( v ) The number of issuance units;
( vi ) The dollar value of allotments issued as reflected in the most recent available data; and
( vii ) Any other relevant information.
[Amdt. 160, 45 FR 15900, Mar. 11, 1980; 45 FR 23637, Apr. 8, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 266, 52 FR 3408, Feb. 4, 1987]
#### In the Matter of Clarence O. Dimmock, Jr., Appellant, v Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 623 of the Business Corporation Law to establish the fair value of stock, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 13,1978, which held that a prior determination of the same court was not influenced by petitioner’s conduct subsequent to the date of the corporate offer for his shares. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the matter is remanded to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. On remittitur from the Court of Appeals *(Matter of Dimmmock v Reichhold Chems.,*41 NY2d 273), Special Term incorrectly perceived the issue before it. The Court of Appeals, *871in effect, reversed that part of the prior judgment of Special Term which denied petitioner an allowance for interest and for costs of appraisal in securing a determination of the fair value of shares of stock in a proceeding pursuant to section 623 of the Business Corporation Law. By doing so the Court of Appeals was directing that the question of good faith be examined anew. Had mere clarification of the judgment been the aim of the Court of Appeals, some means other than reversal would have been employed. The record developed shows sufficient evidence of petitioner’s good faith at the time of the corporate offer of payment for his share of the corporation to warrant an award of interest and costs. Within the short period of time available to him (Business Corporation Law, § 623, subd [h]) to determine whether to accept the corporate offer, petitioner analyzed corporate financial statements, compared the corporation with the industry leader and sought outside advice. This effort, combined with his knowledge of the corporation’s behavior and prospects, obtained through several years of representing both the corporation and its founder, demonstrate good faith at the time of the offer. The facts cited by Special Term in support of its contrary conclusion are not persuasive. Therefore, this matter must be remanded to Special Term to fix appropriate interest and costs. Special Term did not reach the question of petitioner’s entitlement to counsel fees and expert fees because of its resolution of the interest and costs question. Upon remand, Special Term is to consider this issue in light of our decision with respect to interest and costs. We note that a different standard obtains for the determination of counsel fees and expert fees as distinguished from interest and costs (Business Corporation Law, § 623, subd [h], par [7]). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof, I, Edward H. Bersoff, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 results of operations of the
Registrant.





Date:
      April 28, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Edward H. BersoffEdward
      H. BersoffChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32



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 Report on Form 10-KSB of Cala  Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the

date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Cala, Chairman and Chief  Executive 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 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) 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: August 2, 2007 | By: /s/ Joseph Cala                                        
|                     | Joseph Cala                                                
|                     | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### § 29.6102 Rule 16.

In grade specifications frozen shall be treated as a separate kind of injury and the tolerance shall apply to the entire leaf surface of the lot.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Dear Colleague Letter on General Supervision Responsibilities      

# Resource: Dear Colleague Letter on General Supervision Responsibilities

This letter provides guidance to states to ensure the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. The letter describes states’ general supervision responsibilities to ensure that all students with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.**Learn more.**
**Data File Data Type**  **Data Field Definition**  

### Sulfates Fully neutralized ammonium sulfate 

### Nitrates Fully neutralized ammonium nitrate 

### Crustal Fine soil and representative metal

oxide concentration


### OM Organic Mass 

### EC Elem ental Carbon


### Sulfates Sulfate mass which includes sulfate

and ammonum ion concentration plus particle bound water which is included in PM2.5 m ass as measured by the FRM


### Nitrates Nitrate mass which includes fully

neutralized am mo nium nitrate mass plus particle bound water that is retained in measured PM2.5 mass as measured by

the FRM 

### Crustal Fine soil and representative metal

oxide concentration 

### OM Organic Mass


### EC Elem ental Carbon 

### Sulfates Fully neutralized ammonium sulfate 

### Nitrates Fully neutralized ammonium nitrate 

### Crustal Fine soil concentration 

### OM Organic Mass 

### EC
Sulfates Sulfate mass which includes sulfate

and ammonum ion concentration plus particle bound water which is included in PM2.5 m ass as measured by the FRM


### SANDW ICHed 

### Nitrates Nitrate mass which includes fully neutralized am mo nium nitrate mass plus particle bound water that is retained in measured PM2.5 mass as measured by

the FRM 

### Crustal Fine soil concentration


### OM Organic Mass 

### CSN site data

IM PROVE site data Derived from

measurements

SANDW ICHed**

Derived from measurements

### EC Elem ental Carbon * CSN sampling artifact for CSN is estimated as 0.4 ug/m3 **For all of the above SANDW ICH values, includes a part of the SANDW ICH passive component in proportion to the nominal SANDW ICH estimates in order**Derivation**

Measured SO4 ion concentration x 1.375 Measured NO3 ion concentration x 1.29 Estimated using measured Si, Fe, Ca, Ti (modified formula without Al) = 3.73 × [Si] + 1.63 × [Ca] + 2.42 × [Fe] + 1.94 × [Ti] Measured OC adjusted for sampling artifact*, and the resulting value multiplied by 1.6 to represent OM in urban areas

Measured EC
Derived with SANDW ICH

Derived with SANDW ICH

same as Crustal above Derived by

material balance with FRM PM2.5 m ass, using the other SANDW ICH

components Derived from measured EC and nominal SANDW ICH adjustments to achieve material balance with PM2.5 m ass. Measured SO4 x 1.375 Measured NO3 x 1.29 same as Crustal above Measured OC adjusted for sampling artifact, and the resulting value multiplied by 1.8 to represent OM in rural areas

Measured EC
Derived with SANDW ICH

Derived with SANDW ICH

same as Crustal above Derived by

material balance with IMPROVE sampler PM2.5 mass, using the other SANDW ICH componentsDerived from measured EC and

SANDW ICH adjustments to achieve material balance with PM2.5 m ass. * CSN sampling artifact for CSN is estimated as 0.4 ug/m3 **For all of the above SANDW ICH values, includes a part of the SANDW ICH passive component in proportion to the nominal SANDW ICH estimates in order
Exhibit 32.2


Certification Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Noble Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014 (the “Report”), I, Kenneth M. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (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 24, 2014/s/ Kenneth M. FisherKenneth M. FisherChief Financial Officer