alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 625.7 Awards against other agencies.

If an applicant is entitled to an award because it prevails over another agency of the United States that participates in or in any way is a part of an adversary adjudication before the FCA and that agency's position is not substantially justified, the award or an appropriate portion of the award shall be made against that agency.
EXHIBIT 32


                                CERTIFICATION BY
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  National   Lampoon,   Inc  and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2004
as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  and to  which  this
Certification  is an exhibit (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby certify,
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that  to our
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
      for the periods reflected therein.


Date:    March 14, 2004,                  /s/ James P. Jimirro
                                          -----------------------
                                          James P. Jimirro,
                                          Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ James Toll
                                          -----------------------
                                          James Toll,
                                          Chief Financial Officer



                                       16
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Ralph C. Guild, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interep National Radio Sales, 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;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) (Intentionally omitted)



c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    RALPH C. GUILD                            
|                        |  |  |  | Ralph C. Guild                                   
|                        |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
§ 1230.108 IRB functions and operations. ( a ) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: ( 1 ) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
( 2 ) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
( 3 ) Establish and follow written procedures for: ( i ) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
( ii ) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
( iii ) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
( 4 ) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of ( i ) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and
( ii ) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
( b ) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 1230.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-87553, 333-95279,333-95933, 333-36228, 333-40476, 333-44418, 333-51504, 333-63080, 333-81776, 333-87553) of Critical Path, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2005 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose,California 

March 31, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41291 Conference Calendar

RICHARD WARD, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus CHANDLER, Warden; US PENITENTIARY, Beaumont, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-490

-------------------- June 13, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard Charles Ward (#12020-018), a federal prisoner incarcerated at FCC Beaumont, filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons's refusal to credit him for time served while in state custody. The district court denied the application and Ward has appealed. Ward, who is represented by counsel on appeal, has not briefed the question whether he can be required to serve his sentences in installments. Because Ward has not briefed thisNo. 99-41291 -2- issue, it is waived. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Ward has raised two new issues: (1) whether the Bureau of Prisons's refusal to run Ward's federal sentences concurrent with his state sentences violates his plea agreement with the Government and (2) whether the sentencing court's oral pronouncement, sentencing Ward to concurrent 13-month terms of imprisonment, takes precedence over its written judgment, sentencing him to concurrent 103-month terms of imprisonment. We do not reach these issues because they have been raised for the first time on appeal and do not involve purely legal questions. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
§ 1230.109 IRB review of research. ( a ) An IRB shall review and have authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research activities covered by this policy, including exempt research activities under § 1230.104 for which limited IRB review is a condition of exemption (under § 1230.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), and (d)(7), and (8)).
( b ) An IRB shall require that information given to subjects (or legally authorized representatives, when appropriate) as part of informed consent is in accordance with § 1230.116. The IRB may require that information, in addition to that specifically mentioned in § 1230.116, be given to the subjects when in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the protection of the rights and welfare of subjects.
( c ) An IRB shall require documentation of informed consent or may waive documentation in accordance with § 1230.117.
( d ) An IRB shall notify investigators and the institution in writing of its decision to approve or disapprove the proposed research activity, or of modifications required to secure IRB approval of the research activity. If the IRB decides to disapprove a research activity, it shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision and give the investigator an opportunity to respond in person or in writing.
( e ) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research requiring review by the convened IRB at intervals appropriate to the degree of risk, not less than once per year, except as described in § 1230.109(f).
( f ) ( 1 ) Unless an IRB determines otherwise, continuing review of research is not required in the following circumstances: ( i ) Research eligible for expedited review in accordance with § 1230.110;
( ii ) Research reviewed by the IRB in accordance with the limited IRB review described in § 1230.104(d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(C), or (d)(7) or (8);
( iii ) Research that has progressed to the point that it involves only one or both of the following, which are part of the IRB-approved study: ( A ) Data analysis, including analysis of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, or
( B ) Accessing follow-up clinical data from procedures that subjects would undergo as part of clinical care.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( g ) An IRB shall have authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent process and the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
#### CHARLES BRYANT *v.*MARGARET BRYANT.

Divorce — adultery—circumstantial proof — calling the cows.

Circumstances will satisfy the Court of adultery, without positive proof of the fact.

Divorce. Cause, adultery with John Oaks, William Delany, and others.

It was proven that the defendant was sitting with a man up the run some years ago, and when disturbed, his pantaloons were unbuttoned. She said she was hunting a cow, and went further up the run; he followed. She had a habit, when she wanted the men from the saltworks, of going out into the woods, and calling as if calling a cow. Five years ago, she was found just at dark in the fence corner, with Delany; he jumped and run, and she got up and came out to those who discovered them, combing and putting up her hair.

Divorce decreed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  73,947
<CASH>                                          26,734
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             190,101
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 486,317
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                141,734
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             15,582
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   486,317
<PREMIUMS>                                      58,468
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              5,393
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 226
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  67,364
<BENEFITS>                                      57,708
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     17,941
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            57,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,439
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,316)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,316)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

d0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

138722(48)(51) 

WILHELMENA BURISE and 

RALPH BURISE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 138722 

 COA: 281443 

Oakland CC: 2007-084981-NO 

CITY OF PONTIAC, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 28, 2009 order is considered, 

and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
There was clearly a misunderstanding on our last call. Felman is not considering building enclosure.

That remains impractical due to the size and condition of the building and, more importantly, would

create a serious health risk for our employees. The engineering study currently underway has onlyserved to confirm this. What is being considered as part of that engineering study is converting some of

the existing roof vents to collection points and routing their emissions to the baghouses. This is likely to

involve only about 3 of the 8 roof vents visible in the picture you sent on June 2. Not only wouldseveral roof openings remain, but so would the many other existing vents and openings in the building

walls, as necessary to ensure air inside the building is safe for the employees working there. At thistime, these plans are preliminary, and our vendor continues to evaluate source-specific fugitive

emission control options throughout the building in lieu of attempting to control emissions at the roofvents. Without a complete engineering study, this is all the detail we can provide you right now. As

such, I don’t see a need for a call this week. Per Troy’s June 5 email, both Felman and Eramet expect to

have the results of their engineering studies ready to share with you by the end of this month, and arelooking to schedule a time to go over those with you in detail. I will leave it to you and Troy to agree on

a date that works for everyone.

Amy

Amy M. Lincoln

PrincipalBeveridge & Diamond, P.C.

456 Montgomery Street Suite 1800

San Francisco, CA 94104

T (415) 262-4029 F (415) 262-4040

ALincoln@bdlaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information from the law firm

of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. and may be confidential or privileged. The information is intendedsolely for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended

recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying. distribution, or use of the contents of this messageis prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at(202) 789-6000 or by e-mail reply and delete this message. Thank you.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conradepamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:14 AM

To: Amy M. Lincoln

Cc: Chuck French; friedman.beth@ecrweb.com; J Konrady@fpiwv.com; Jonathan Averback;

RLunnfpiwv.com; Conrad Chin
Is it possible we set up a call tomorrow or Thursday to discuss this? Thanks and best regards,

Conrad K. Chin

Mail Code D243-02

Metals and Minerals Group

Sector Policies and Programs DivisionOffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919-541-1512 (voice)

919-541-3207 (fax)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1019 PLATE 5

-——. —=— — =

} ‘60
SCALE
[guise fn CERT he aie. 300 1000 1300 200028003000 mites

70 ° 1000 2000 3000 ‘4000 KILOMETERS.

(TRUE DISTANCES ON MID-MERIDIANS AND PARALLELS 0° TO 40°)

GOODE’S HOMOLOSINE EQUAL-AREA PROJECTION

= —_ —— — — — — —
MAP SHOWING SELENIUM-BEARING ORE DEPOSITS OF THE WORLD, EXCEPTING THE UNITED STATES
LOCALITIES

1. Britannia mine, British Columbia, Canada* 34. Upper Silesia, Germany

2. Granby, British Columbia, Canada 35. Rammelsberg and Harz Mountains, Germany
3. Goldfields district, Saskatchewan, Canada 36. Mansfeld, Germany

4, Flin Flon, Manitoba, Canada 37. Carmenes mine, Villamanin, Spain

5. Theano Point, Ontario, Canada 38. Rio Tinto, Spain

6. Sudbury, Ontario, Canada 39. Faczebaja, Hungary

7. Noranda, Quebec, Canada 40. Bor, Yugoslavia

8. Cananea, Mexico 41, Montecatini, Italy

9. Guadaleazar, Mexico 42. Shinkolobwe, Belgian Congo

10. Guanajuato, Mexico 43, Katanga, Belgian Congo

11. San Onofre and Culebras, Mexico 44. N’Kana, Mufulira, Northern Rhodesia

12. Pachuca, Mexico 45. Singhbham, India

13. Huitzuco, Guerrero, Mexico 46. Bawdwin, Burma

14. El Plomo mine, Ojojoma district, Tegucigalpa, 47, Nong Phai, Thailand

Honduras 48. Radjang Lebong and Lebong Soelit, Sumatra

15. Cerro de Pasco, Peru 49. Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia

16. Colquechaca and Pacajake, Bolivia 50. Mount Morgan, Queensland, Australia

17. Catamarca, Argentina 51. Nairne, South Australia

18, Aguas Blancas, Copiapo, Chile 52, Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia
19. Flamenco, Atacama, Chile 53, Mount Allen mine, Mount Hope, New South
20. Sierra de Umango, La Rioja, Argentina Wales, Australia
21. Safiogasta, La Rioja, Argentina 54. Mount Lyell, Tasmania
22. Cuesta de los Llantenes, La Rioja, Argentina 55. Great Barrier, Hauraki Goldfields, New
23. Cerro de Cacheuta, Mendoza, Argentina Zealand
24, St. Agnes, Cornwall, England 56. Besshi mine, Japant
25. Birtavarre, Norway 57. Ikuno mine, Japant
26. Grong, Norway 58. Hitachi copper mine, Japan
27. Lkken, Norway 59. Hosokura mine, Japant
28. Kongsberg, Norway 60. Osarizawa mine, Japant
29. Skellefte, Sweden 61. Yakumo mine, Japan
30. Falun, Sweden 62. Belovo, Altai Mountains, U. 8. 8. R.
31. Garpenberg, Sweden 63. Karabash and Kyshtym, U.S. 8. R.
32. Skrikerum, Sweden 64, Krasnouralsk, U. 8. 8. R.

478446 © -59 (In pocket)

33. Outokumpu, Finland

* Information from unpublished source. {Information from company annual reports.
### 'EF^RTMENTO F -^ANSPOHTATIO N •KE TOPERATION S ^^; n nc i f s P 2:5 3 

# © s p S

3 iviemorandu m U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o fth e Secretar

y o fTransportatio n Subject : Essentia l Ai r

Servic e at : Ironwood , Michigan/Ashland , Date : Octobe r 15 , 201 0 Wisconsi n(Docke t

DOT-OST-1999-5712 ) an d Manistee/Ludington , Michiga n(Docke t DOT-OST-1996 - 

## mi) . From : Denni s J . DeVaM , Chie f C any . O Repl y t o BrianSwanson , EA S & Domesti c Analysi s Division , X-5 3 ^"" - °* - X-5 3 Ext . 6539 2 ^° - Docket s Operations , M-3 0 Seaport Airlines , withth e support o f th e tw o communitie s identifie dabove , ha s requeste d a nextension , fromOctobe r 18 , 2010 , unti l Octobe r

25 , 2010 , t o evaluat e whethe r i t wil l fil e aproposa l t o provid e Essentia l Ai r Servic e a

t th e tw o communities . Thi s i s t o advis e al l partie s that w e hav e decide dt o gran t th e requeste dextensio nt o fil e proposals . Proposal s mus t b e receive db y n o late r

tha nOctobe r

25 , 2010 .