alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mindray Medical International Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
     5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the
companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RANDY A. HART,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-285-RV-MJF

SCOTT PAYNE, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated October 22, 2020 (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff was furnished 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No 

objections have been filed. 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 (ECF No. 2) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), without 

prejudice to Plaintiff’s initiating a new cause of action accompanied by payment of 

the $400.00 filing fee in its entirety.

Case 5:20-cv-00285-RV-MJF Document 3 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of the court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2020.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00285-RV-MJF Document 3 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 51.1345 General.

All percentages shall be calculated on the basis of weight.
32.110 Payment of subcontractors under cost-reimbursement prime contracts.       If the contractor makes financing payments to a subcontractor under a cost-reimbursement prime contract, the contracting officer should accept the financing payments as reimbursable costs of the prime contract only under the following conditions:                                       (a) The payments are made under the criteria in subpart  32.5 for customary progress payments based on costs, 32.202-1 for commercial product or commercial service purchase financing, or 32.1003 for performance-based payments, as applicable.                                          (b) If customary progress payments are made, the payments do not exceed the progress payment rate in 32.501-1, unless unusual progress payments to the subcontractor have been approved in accordance with 32.501-2.                                          (c) If customary progress payments are made, the subcontractor complies with the liquidation principles of 32.503-8, 32.503-9, and 32.503-10.                                          (d) If performance-based payments are made, the subcontractor complies with the liquidation principles of 32.1004(d).                                          (e) The subcontract contains financing payments terms as prescribed in this part.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 32.1 - Financing for Other Than a Commercial Purchase
#### Casimir J. Mally, Petitioner, v New York University et al., Re*864spondents.

— Determination of respondent State Human Rights Appeal Board dated July 9, 1979, unanimously confirmed on the merits, without costs and without disbursements, and determination of respondent State Division of Human Rights dated June 5, 1979, unanimously confirmed on the merits, without costs and without disbursements. (See *Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights,*72 AD2d 679.) No opinion. Concur— Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom, Silverman and Ross, JJ.
Third Department,

October, 1980

(October 9, 1980)

#### In the Matter of William T. Smith, Petitioner, v James P. Melton, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, which revoked petitioner’s driver’s license for refusal to submit to a chemical test following his arrest for driving while intoxicated. Although some of the salient facts were in sharp dispute, respondent found that an automobile owned and operated by petitioner collided with another vehicle on August 26, 1977 in the City of Schenectady. Petitioner went to his home and later reported the incident to the police department. When the investigating officer arrived at petitioner’s residence, he obtained an admission from petitioner that he had been operating one of the vehicles involved in the accident in question. Although he denied having anything to drink thereafter, the officer noticed that petitioner’s speech was slurred, that he staggered when he walked, and that his breath smelled of alcohol. Petitioner was then arrested for driving while intoxicated and was asked to take a breath chemical test. He refused. Immediately prior thereto the officer warned him of the consequences of a refusal to submit to the test. Petitioner’s version of the facts was to the contrary. He denied leaving the scene of an accident, being arrestfed for driving while intoxicated, or being warned about refusing to take a test. He contended he was arrested for failing to produce an insurance card, which charge was subsequently dismissed. Nothing more than conflicting versions of what transpired are presented— one by the investigating officer and one by petitioner. Respondent accepted the officer’s account, and the record contains substantial evidentiary support for his determination. Accordingly, we must confirm *(Matter of Boyle v Tofany,*36 NY2d 1012; *Matter of Tompkins v Melton, 57*AD2d 682; *Matter of Williams v Tofany,*46 AD2d 708). Determination confirmed, and petition *705dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC LAW 107–214—AUG. 21, 2002 116 STAT. 1053

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1384:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–222 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–184 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): Oct. 2, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–214

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route in Arizona and

New Mexico which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced

to walk in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to the National Trails

System.

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 ‘‘Long Walk National Historic

Trail Study Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Beginning in the fall of 1863 and ending in the winter

of 1864, the United States Government forced thousands of

Navajos and Mescalero Apaches to relocate from their ancestral

lands to Fort Sumner, New Mexico, where the tribal members

were held captive, virtually as prisoners of war, for over 4

years.

(2) Thousands of Native Americans died at Fort Sumner

from starvation, malnutrition, disease, exposure, or conflicts

between the tribes and United States military personnel.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.

1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(ll) The Long Walk Trail, a series of routes which the

Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk

beginning in the fall of 1863 as a result of their removal by the

United States Government from their ancestral lands, generally

located within a corridor extending through portions of Canyon

de Chelley, Arizona, and Albuquerque, Canyon Blanco, Anton Chico,

Canyon Piedra Pintado, and Fort Sumner, New Mexico.’’.

Approved August 21, 2002.

16 USC 1241

note.

Long Walk

National Historic

Trail Study Act.

Aug. 21, 2002

[H.R. 1384]
EXHIBIT 32.01
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       In connection with the quarterlyreport on Form 10-QSB of The Furia Organization, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned President, Treasurer  and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
       1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and
       2.  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
Dated: April 1, 2005
 
By: 
 /s/ Michael D. Alexander
   
Michael D. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Accounting Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer

****
EXHIBIT 10.46









***  Indicates material has been omitted pursuant to a Confidential Treatment Request filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  A complete copy of this agreement has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.










[Letterhead of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.]







November 17, 2010












Via Fax and Federal Express







Public Energy Solutions, LLC


120 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 190


East Hanover, NJ 07936







Attention: Ed Myszka










Re:           AmendmentofDemandSideManagementAgreement







Gentlemen:







Reference is made to the Demand Side Management Agreement, dated as of February 6, 2008,as amended (the "Agreement"), between Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Edison") and Public Energy Solutions. LLC ("Contractor"). Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.




The following, when confirmed by you, shall serve to set forth our agreement to amend the Agreement with respect to the Electric Network Periods set forth in paragraph 1 below, as follows:




1.  InExhibitB,thechartcontainingtheContractLoadReductionGuaranty,LRCD and LRED and the Security B Amount and related payment date for each of the Electric Network Periods applicable to the East 13th Street Load Area shall be deleted and the following chart shall be substituted in lieu thereof:







Load Areas/Networks ("Electric Network" as defined in the Agreement)
5/1/2010 LRCD to 4/30/2012 LRED
5/1/2011 LRCD to 4/30/2012 LRED
5/1/2012 LRCD to 4/30/2013 LRED(A) East 13th Street - Manhattan (Cooper Square/City Hall/Chelsea/Madison Square/Greeley Square/Kips Bay/Greenwich/Sheridan Square/Canal/Park Place)
*** KW CLRG

(Security B Amount of $*** due on or before 1/1/2010)
*** KW CLRG

(Security B Amount of $*** due on or before 1/1/2011)(B) Cooper Square

*** KW CLRG

(Security B Amount of $*** due on or before 1/1/2011)
*** KW CLRG

(Security B Amount of $*** due on or before 1/1/2012)











2.           For purposes of clarity, the Contract Load Reduction Guaranty for the Cooper Square Electric Network set forth in (B) in Paragraph 1 above is in addition to the


ContractLoadReductionGuarantyfortheEast13th Street Load area set forth in (A) in Paragraph 1 above (which may include additional load reduction in the


Cooper Square Electric Network).





3.           The ***% limit on Excess Load Reduction set forth in Section 9of the Agreement shall be changed to *** kW for the East 13th Street Load Area for each of the Electric Network














Please confirm your agreement to the foregoing by signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to the undersigned.








Very truly yours,





CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC







By: /s/ John McMahon


Print Name:  John McMahon


Title:  Executive Vice President



















CONFIRMED AND AGREED TO:








By:  /s/ Edward Myszka





Print Name:  Edward Myszka





Title:  EVP





Date:  11-17-10
EXHIBIT 32.2

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of ANTs software inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the period ended December 31, 2008:

        1. 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 results of operations of the
Company.

           This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and
is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed"
for any purpose whatsoever.

Date:    April 30, 2009

                             /s/ Joseph Kozak
                             Joseph Kozak, Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be
retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
upon request.


                                       89
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CATHERINE YOUELLS,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv492–WS/ZCB

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 28) docketed December 20, 2022. The magistrate judge recommends that the

Acting Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for benefits be

reversed. The Acting Commissioner has filed no objections to the report and

recommendation. 

The court being in accord with the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, it is ORDERED:

Case 4:20-cv-00492-WS-ZCB Document 30 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. The court ADOPTS and incorporates by reference into this order the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 28).

2. The Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for

benefits is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3. This case shall be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further

consideration consistent with the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

4. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "The decision of the Commissioner

is REVERSED." 

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of January , 2023.

s/ William Stafford

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00492-WS-ZCB Document 30 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 2
#### § 51.54 Plant survey.

Prior to the inauguration of continuous Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service on a contract basis, the Administrator will make or cause to be made a survey and inspection where such service is to be performed to determine whether the premises, plant and facilities are suitable and adequate for the performance of such service in accordance with the regulations in this part, including, but not limited to requirements contained in §§ 51.54 through 51.59.
2005-1992.

#### State ex rel. Cafaro Mgt. Co. v. Mabe.

In Mandamus. On complaint and answer of respondent. Alternative writ granted, and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days; relator shall file its brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file his brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.
12.300 Scope of subpart.

This subpart establishes provisions and clauses to be used when acquiring commercial products and

commercial services.

Parent topic: Subpart 12.3 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for the Acquisition of

Commercial Products and Commercial Services
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01206

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01206\01206_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01206\01206_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01206\01206_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01206\01206_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01206\01206_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01206\01206_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01206\01206_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01206\01206_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_IPL's Response to EPA ICR_IPL_091510.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP A5-3 WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP C3-29.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP Certification - Signed by Terry Kouba.pdf Plant certification statement

x 01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP D2-3 Pond1 Ash Pond Redesign.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP D2-3 Pond2 Ash Pond Redesign.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01206\Supplemental Documents\01206_KAP D3-1 D-1 and D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### HUTTER, Respondent, v. ASH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by Jacob Hutter against Sidney Ash and Alfred Lewin.

No opinion. Final order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7250]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: November 15, 2010.

James B. Steinberg,

Deputy Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-30123 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
32.006-3 Responsibilities.

(a) Agencies shall establish appropriate procedures to implement the policies and procedures of this

section.

(b) Government personnel shall report suspected fraud related to advance, partial, or progress

payments in accordance with agency regulations.

Parent topic: 32.006 Reduction or suspension of contract payments upon finding of fraud.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ALEXANDER CHAVARRIA

PEREDES, A-206-225-112,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv484-MW/MAF

WILLIAM BARR, et al.,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 5. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. This Court acknowledges that Petitioner may no longer be in custody. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 7 (mail returned as undeliverable and marked “released”). Because 

that may not be the case, Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, 

shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Louisiana, Alexandria Division, for all further proceedings. The Clerk shall take all 

Case 4:20-cv-00484-MW-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 2
2

steps necessary to effect the transfer and close the file. 

SO ORDERED on November 6, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00484-MW-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2