alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2



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 Annual Report of
Actuate Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel A. Gaudreau, Senior Vice President, Finance
and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 28, 2003



/s/    DANIEL A.
GAUDREAU

---

Daniel A. Gaudreau

Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and

Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1902.31 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

*Act* means the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.)*

*Affirmative 18(e) determination* means an affirmative determination under section 18(e) of the Act that the State plan or any modification thereof, is in actual operation meeting the criteria and indices of section 18(c) of the Act and subpart B of this part so as to warrant the withdrawal of the application of discretionary Federal enforcement and standards authority from issues covered by the plan, or by any modification thereof.

*Assistant Regional Director* means the Assistant Regional Director for Occupational Safety and Health for the region in which a State is located.

*Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

*Commencement of a case* under section 18(e) of the Act means, for the purpose of retaining Federal jurisdiction despite an affirmative 18(e) determination, the issuance of a citation, and in the case of an imminent danger, the initiation of enforcement proceedings under section 13 of the Act.

*Commencement of plan operations* means the beginning of operations under a plan following the approval of the plan by the Assistant Secretary and in no case may be later than the effective date of the initial funding grant provided under section 23(g) of the Act.

*Development step* includes, but is not limited to, those items listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions thereof, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items specified in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act for completion by the State, as well as those items which under the approval decision were subject to evaluations and changes deemed necessary as a result thereof to make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program within the 3 years developmental period. (See 29 CFR 1953.4(a)).

*Initial approval* means approval of a State plan, or any modification thereof, under section 18(c) of the Act and subpart C of this part.

*Person* means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, organized group of individuals, or any agency, authority or instrumentality of the United States or of a State.

*Separable portion of a plan* for purposes of an 18(e) determination generally means more than one industrial, occupational or hazard grouping as defined in § 1902.2(c)(1) which is administratively practicable and reasonably separable from the remainder of the plan. (See 29 CFR 1952.6(a).)

[40 FR 54782, Nov. 26, 1975, as amended at 67 FR 60128, Sept. 25, 2002; 80 FR 49903, Aug. 18, 2015]
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 -75.0

38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0



### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 13, 2011
    By:

/s/ Thomas OSullivanThomas OSullivanPresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 13, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Robert J. Leist, Jr.Robert J. Leist, Jr.Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 100.623 Exception to termination.

If a debt meets the exceptions described in 31 CFR 903.4, the NLRB may refer it for litigation even though termination of collection activity may otherwise be appropriate.
§ 38.15 Reference geometric factor. For each airplane subject to this part, determine the airplane's non-dimensional RGF for the fuselage size of each airplane model, calculated as follows: ( a ) For an airplane with a single deck, determine the area of a surface (expressed in m^2) bounded by the maximum width of the fuselage outer mold line projected to a flat plane parallel with the main deck floor and the forward and aft pressure bulkheads except for the crew flight deck zone.
( b ) For an airplane with more than one deck, determine the sum of the areas (expressed in m^2) as follows: ( 1 ) The maximum width of the fuselage outer mold line, projected to a flat plane parallel with the main deck floor by the forward and aft pressure bulkheads except for any crew flight deck zone.
( 2 ) The maximum width of the fuselage outer mold line at or above each other deck floor, projected to a flat plane parallel with the additional deck floor by the forward and aft pressure bulkheads except for any crew flight deck zone.
( c ) Determine the non-dimensional RGF by dividing the area defined in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section by 1 m^2.
( d ) All measurements and calculations used to determine the RGF of an airplane must be made in accordance with the procedures for determining RGF in section A38.3 of appendix A to this part.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4803 

To make the 3450–3550 MHz spectrum band available for non-Federal use. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2020 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To make the 3450–3550 MHz spectrum band available for 

non-Federal use. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Beat China by Har5 nessing Important, National Airwaves for 5G Act of 

6 2020’’ or the ‘‘Beat CHINA for 5G Act of 2020’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REALLOCATION AND AUCTION OF 3450–3550 MHZ 

8 SPECTRUM BAND. 

9 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4803 IS

1 (1) the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal 

2 Communications Commission; and 

3 (2) the term ‘‘covered band’’ means the band of 

4 electromagnetic spectrum between the frequencies of 

5 3450 megahertz and 3550 megahertz, inclusive. 

6 (b) WITHDRAWAL OR MODIFICATION OF FEDERAL

7 GOVERNMENT ASSIGNMENTS.—The President, acting 

8 through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Commu9 nications and Information, shall— 

10 (1) not later than 180 days after the date of 

11 enactment of this Act, in coordination with relevant 

12 Federal users, begin the process of withdrawing or 

13 modifying the assignments to Federal Government 

14 stations of the covered band as necessary for the 

15 Commission to comply with subsection (c); and 

16 (2) not later than 30 days after completing any 

17 necessary withdrawal or modification under para18 graph (1), notify the Commission that the with19 drawal or modification is complete. 

20 (c) REALLOCATION AND AUCTION.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall— 

22 (A) revise the non-Federal allocation for 

23 the covered band to permit flexible-use services; 

24 and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4803 IS

1 (B) notwithstanding paragraph (15)(A) of 

2 section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 

3 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), not later than Decem4 ber 31, 2021, begin a system of competitive 

5 bidding under that section to grant new initial 

6 licenses for the use of the covered band, subject 

7 to flexible-use service rules. 

8 (2) EXEMPTION FROM NOTIFICATION REQUIRE9 MENT.—The first sentence of section 113(g)(4)(A) 

10 of the National Telecommunications and Informa11 tion Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 

12 923(g)(4)(A)) shall not apply with respect to the 

13 system of competitive bidding required under para14 graph (1)(B) of this subsection. 

15 (3) PROCEEDS TO COVER 110 PERCENT OF FED16 ERAL RELOCATION OR SHARING COSTS.—Nothing in 

17 paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Com18 mission from the requirements of section 

19 309(j)(16)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 

20 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(16)(B)). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 65.85 Airframe rating; additional privileges. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a certificated mechanic with an airframe rating may approve and return to service an airframe, or any related part or appliance, after he has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or alteration (excluding major repairs and major alterations). In addition, he may perform the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this chapter on an airframe, or any related part or appliance, and approve and return it to service.
( b ) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating can approve and return to service an airframe, or any related part or appliance, of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category after performing and inspecting a major repair or major alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA approval provided the work was performed in accordance with instructions developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-10, 32 FR 5770, Apr. 11, 1967; Amdt. 65-45, 69 FR 44879, July 27, 2004]
§ 1902.44 Requirements applicable to State plans granted affirmative 18(e) determinations. ( a ) A State whose plan, or modification thereof, has been granted an affirmative 18(e) determination will be required to maintain a program within the scope of such determination which will be “at least as effective as” operations under the Federal program in providing employee safety and health protection at covered workplaces within the comparable scope of the Federal program. This requirement includes submitting all required reports to the Assistant Secretary, as well as submitting supplements to the Assistant Secretary for his approval whenever there is a change in the State's program, whenever the results of evaluations conducted under section 18(f) show that some portion of a State plan has an adverse impact on the operations of the State plan or whenever the Assistant Secretary determines that any alteration in the Federal program could have an adverse impact on the “at least as effective as” status of the State program. See part 1953 of this chapter.
( b ) A substantial failure to comply with the requirements of this section may result in the revocation of the affirmative 18(e) determination and the resumption of Federal enforcement authority, and may also result in proceedings for the withdrawal of approval of the plan or any portion thereof pursuant to part 1955 of this chapter.
§ 101.43 Proceedings following the filing of the petition. ( a ) A copy of the petition is served on all other parties.
( b ) Interested persons may request intervention by a written motion to the Board. Such intervention may be granted at the discretion of the Board.
( c ) All other parties may reply to the petition in writing.
( d ) Briefs may be filed.
( e ) After review of the record, the Board issues a declaratory order as to whether it will assert jurisdiction over the cases, but it will not render a decision on the merits at this stage of the cases.
( f ) The declaratory Board order will be binding on the parties in both cases.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFERY KELCE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

S. CERVANTES, Appeals Coordinator; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 04-15601

D.C. No. CV-01-02350-DFL/JFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, ** District

Judge.

Jeffrey Kelce, a former California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Kelce alleged that

FILED

JUN 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him access to the courts

and depriving him of his property. Kelce also challenged certain regulations

governing the California state prison grievance process as unconstitutional. 

The parties on appeal agreed that Kelce had unexhausted remedies for his

claims under the California Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 900 et seq. In

view of the posture of the case, we remand the case to the district court with

directions to hold this action in abeyance while Kelce pursues his remedies under

the California Tort Claims Act. After the resolution of those claims, the district

court shall conduct any further appropriate proceedings to determine any

remaining issues in this case. 

We need not, and do not, reach any other issue urged by the parties on

appeal. 

REMANDED.
#### CLEVELAND RY CO v SEBESTA et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21475.

Decided May 29, 1929

Syllabus by

KINKADE, J.

RAILROADS — Automobiles (50 R!b2)

(500 D2d) It is the duty of a passenger upon a street car, when alighting from the car upon a public street or highway, to exercise ordinary care for his own safety against danger arising from the use of the street at that time and place by vehicular travel; and when the stop of the street car is at a point where *351vehicular travel is not held in abeyance by traffic officer, signal light or other regulations, while the street car is standing. at such stop, the ordinary care required on the part of the passenger leaving the car at such point includes the duty of the passenger to look in the direction from which vehicular travel may reasonably be expected to approach, and súch looking, should be done at a time when it will be effective to serve the purpose designed by it; and a failure to so look constitutes such negligence as will bar a right of recovery for injuries by collision with such vehicular travel which might otherwise be avoided by the observance of the care, required.

Marshall, CJ, Jones and Day, JJ, concur. Robinson, Matthias and Allen, JJ, dissent.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86168) pertaining to the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. Rapidstream, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84081) pertaining to the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Compensation Plan, in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-43562 and Form S-8 No. 333-62742) both pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan and in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51196) pertaining to the 2000 Qiave Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 3, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Seattle Washington 

March 25, 2002
exv10w1w10







Exhibit 10.1.10




October 30, 2009




Katheryn E. Shea

Vice President, BioServices Operations

SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.

37 Birch Street

Milford, MA 01757




          Re: Modification of Award




Dear Ms. Shea:



This letter will confirm your agreement with and acknowledgment of the following:



You hereby consent to the modification of the Award Opportunity provided to you under the SeraCare
Life Sciences, Inc. Management Incentive Plan effective as of October 1, 2007 (the “Plan”)
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009 such that the Award Payment shall be payable one-half
in cash and one-half in shares of common stock of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. (the
“Company”) on the criteria previously set by the Board of Directors of the Company. The
number of shares of the Company’s common stock that will be granted to you will equal one-half of
the Award Payment divided by the closing price per share of the Company’s common stock on the date
of grant of such shares (the “Share Grant Date”). The resulting share total shall be
rounded down to the nearest whole share and any fractional amount shall be payable in cash. These
shares shall be granted pursuant to the Company’s 2009 Equity Incentive Plan. Notwithstanding any
of the foregoing, the Company may in its discretion pay cash (in lieu of shares) equal to the
actual fair market value of any portion or all of such shares on the Share Grant Date.



For the avoidance of doubt, the Company may withhold from cash amounts otherwise payable to you,
including up to the entire amount of the cash portion of the Award Payment, such amounts as the
Company determines in its discretion may be required to be withheld for tax purposes with respect
to the Award Payment (including both the cash and the stock portions thereof). All capitalized
terms above which are not defined herein are as defined in the Plan.



 









 





Please indicate your agreement to the terms of this letter by countersigning this letter in the
space provided below and returning your original signed letter to the Company.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Name:
	 	/s/ Susan L.N. Vogt
 

Susan L.N. Vogt
	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 






Accepted and agreed to under seal this 30th day of October, 2009




	 	 	 
	/s/ Katheryn E. Shea
 

Katheryn E. Shea
#### Frances Herron, Appellant, *v.*Columbus Trust Company, Respondent.

Argued March 16, 1937;

decided April 20, 1937.

*656
      *Henry Hirschberg*for appellant.

*Peter Cantline, T. V. W. Anthony*and *A. H. F. Seeger*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### AULT v. HALL

Ohio Supreme Court.

No. 21165.

Decided Dec. 19, 1928.

MARSHALL. C. J.

NEGLIGENCE.

(370 B) A presumtion of negligence is never indulged from the mere fact of injury, but the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the defendant and that such negligence is a proximate cause of injury and damage.

(370 O) In an action for negligence, conformity to custom or usage is a matter proper to be submitted to the jury for its consideration in determining whether or not ordinary care has been exercised.

(370 C4) Customary methods or conduct do not furnish a test which is conclusive or controlling on the question of negligence or fix a standard by which negligence is to be gauged, but conformity thereto a circumstance to be weighed and considered with other circumstances in determining whether or not ordinary care has been exercised.

Methods employed in any trade, business or profession, however long continued, cannot avail to establish as safe in law that which is dangerous in fact.

PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS.

(430 M) Where a surgeon in the course of an abdominal operation uses sponges and fails to remove one of them from the cavity before closing the incision, it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury that if the custom of counting by nurses was reasonable and defendant followed and relied upon it, the verdict should be in his favor.

The duty of a surgeon to exercise due care to ascertain that no foreign substance is left in the abdomen of one operated on is not conclusively shown to have been performed by evidence that he followed the usual practice and custom of surgeons of relying on a count by the nurses of sponges used in the course of such operation.

In an action against a surgeon for malpractice the jury should be instructed that the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence and the jury must find that the defendant in the performance of his service either did some particular thing or things that physicians and surgeons of ordianary skill, care and diligence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or that the defendant failed or omitted to do some particular thing or things which physicians and surgeons' of ordinary skill, care and diligence would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

In the performance of a surgical operation where an incision is made in the abdomen and where surgical sponges are used, the removal of such sponges is a part of the operation itself, and a failure to remove such sponges before the incision is finally closed is prima facie evidence of negligence.

Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur. Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur in the judgment.
#### Waddell *v.*The State.

Assault with Intent.

(Decided April 3, 1917.

74 South. 726.)

Bills of Exceptions; Signing; Statute. — Under §3019, Code 1907, a purported bill of exceptions presented to the trial judge within the time required, but never signed by him at any time, must be stricken on motion of the state, or of the appellee.

Appeal from Elmore County Court.

Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter.

Coy Waddell was convicted of assault with intent to murder and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Frank W. Lull, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*598BRICKEN, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted of assault with intent to murder. The bill of exceptions in this case was not signed by the trial judge as required by law (Code 1907, § 3019), and therefore cannot be considered by this court. Section 3019 of the Code 1907 provides that bills of exception may be presented at any time within 90 days from the day on which the judgment is entered, and not afterwards. The judge must indorse thereon and as a part of the bill the true date of presenting ; and the bill of exceptions must, if correct, be signed by him within 90 days thereafter. In this case, what purports to be a bill of exceptions was presented within the time prescribed by law and was so indorsed by the trial judge; but the bill of exceptions was never signed by the judge at any time, and therefore must be stricken on request of the state.

As the errors insisted upon on this appeal are raised only by the alleged bill of exceptions, they are not before us for review. There appearing no error in the record, the judgment of the lower court is *affirmed.*— Box, *et al. v. South. Ry. Co.,*184 Ala. 600, 64 South. 69; *Hartselle & Co. v. Wilhite, et al.,*3 Ala. App. 612, 57 South. 129.

Affirmed.