alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - International Disability Statistics /
              - 14.1 International Disability Statistics—Employment Rates of Working-Age People with Disabilities in Selected OECD Countries

## Table 14.1: International Disability Statistics—Employment Rates of Working-Age People withDisabilities in SelectedOECD Countries

| United States | 39.9 | 2004 |
|---------------|------|------|

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
#### § 22.43 Collection of civil penalties and assessments.

Sections 3806 and 3808(b) of title 31 U.S.C., authorize actions for collection of civil penalties and assessments imposed under this part and specify the procedures for such actions.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1


                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



I Forrest Travis, the Chief Executive Officer of Intrepid Capital Corporation
(the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

         1.       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  August 14, 2002
                                         /s/ Forrest Travis
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Forrest Travis, Chief Executive Officer


                                      19
ex10-5.htm


    Exhibit
10.5

     

    EXTENSION
AGREEMENT

     

    EXTENSION
AGREEMENT dated as of November 12, 2009 by and between Kevin McGrath (the
“Holder”) and Advance Nanotech, Inc. (the “Company”).

     

    RECITALS

     

    WHEREAS
the Holder is the holder of Senior Secured Note(s) dated April 15, 2009 (as
heretofore amended, the “Note”) in the principal amount of $300,000 and with a
maturity date of October 15, 2009;

     

    WHEREAS
the Company desires to have the maturity date of the Note extended to December
31, 2009 and the Holder is willing to extend the maturity date and waive any
defaults arising from the Company’s failure to pay the Note on October 15,
2009.

     

    NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations, warranties,
covenants, agreements, terms and conditions contained herein and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

     

    1.           The
“Maturity Date,” as such term is used in the Note, is hereby amended so that it
will be deemed to mean December 31, 2009 wherever it appears in the
Note.

     

    2.           The
Holder hereby waives any events of default arising from the failure of the
Company to pay principal and accrued interest on the Note on or after October
15, 2009.

     

    3.           Except
as expressly set forth herein, the Note shall remain in full force and effect,
without modification, alteration or amendment.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Holder and the Company have executed and delivered this
Extension Agreement as of the date first above written.

     

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        
                          
                            
                              
                                	Date:
      November 12, 2009	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/
      Kevin McGrath	 
	 	 	Kevin
      McGrath	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	ADVANCE
      NANOTECH, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                                         

                                      	
                                        By:
      

                                      	/s/ Bret
      Bader	 
	 	 	Bret
      Bader	 
	 	 	Chief
      Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12479]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1910-BJ-4377; ES-50671, Group 154, Minnesota]


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Minnesota

    The plat of the dependent resurvey of portions of the south, east 
and north boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey 
of the subdivision of sections 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9 through 21, 23 
through 28, and 30 through 36, the reestablishment of the record 
meander line in sections 2, 3, 4, 11, 18, 23 and 34, and the metes-and-
bounds survey in section 34, Township 143 North, Range 39 West, 5th 
Principal Meridian, Minnesota, will be officially filed in Eastern 
States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on June 19, 2000.
    The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., June 19, 2000.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the appropriate fee.

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 00-12479 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
#### TESTA v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Oct 11, 1929

Ambrose, Wall & Bence, Youngstown, for Testa.

R. L. Thomas, Prosecuting Attorney, Youngstown, for State.

FARR, J.

At the inception of the hearing before the Justice of the Peace, counsel for the accused made the following statement:

> “Have the record show the following objections to the proceedings before this court presiding or in anywise attempting to preside over the trial of this defendant, for the reason and upon the following grounds:

> 1. That Charles W. Martin is a justice of the peace and defendant objects to his jurisdiction.

> 2. Said Charles W. Martin, as squire, is further objected to by the defendant on the ground that he is financially interested in this prosecution.

> 3. That notwithstanding the provisions of the statute under the authority of the case of State v. Tari, defendant now objects to the jurisdiction of the justice and demands that he be discharged.”

*334it becomes readily apparent that the objection to the judgment in this case is based largely upon the Tari decision. It is provided 1448 GC that:

> *“A*justice of the peace, mayor or police judge shall have final jurisdiction within his county in a prosecution' for violation of any provision of the laws relating to the protection, preservation or propagation of birds, fish, game, etc.”

It is also provided in 1452 GC that regardless of whether the accused is acquitted or convicted, that the costs must be certified by the justice of the peace to the County Auditor, who in turn certifies the amount to the County Treasurer, who pays the same. The amount is then certified to the Secretary of Agriculture, who makes a certificate to the Auditor of State, where a voucher is drawn for the payment of costs in such cause.

It becomes clear that the Justice of the Peace has no financial interest in the outcome of the trial, for the reason that in any event, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted and discharged, he receives his fees, and for such reason the principle announced in the Tari case does not apply, and it was so held by the Attorney General of Ohio in opinion 204 of the 1927 Opinions of the Attorney General of Ohio, 342.

Further discussion - is not necessary or profitable, since this is the only issue in the cause. For the reason given the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ. concur.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.908 Use of detonating cord. ( a ) Care shall be taken to select a detonating cord consistent with the type and physical condition of the bore hole and stemming and the type of explosives used.
( b ) Detonating cord shall be handled and used with the same respect and care given other explosives.
( c ) The line of detonating cord extending out of a bore hole or from a charge shall be cut from the supply spool before loading the remainder of the bore hole or placing additional charges.
( d ) Detonating cord shall be handled and used with care to avoid damaging or severing the cord during and after loading and hooking-up.
( e ) Detonating cord connections shall be competent and positive in accordance with approved and recommended methods. Knot-type or other cord-to-cord connections shall be made only with detonating cord in which the explosive core is dry.
( f ) All detonating cord trunklines and branchlines shall be free of loops, sharp kinks, or angles that direct the cord back toward the oncoming line of detonation.
( g ) All detonating cord connections shall be inspected before firing the blast.
( h ) When detonating cord millisecond-delay connectors or short-interval-delay electric blasting caps are used with detonating cord, the practice shall conform strictly to the manufacturer's recommendations.
( i ) When connecting a blasting cap or an electric blasting cap to detonating cord, the cap shall be taped or otherwise attached securely along the side or the end of the detonating cord, with the end of the cap containing the explosive charge pointed in the direction in which the detonation is to proceed.
( j ) Detonators for firing the trunkline shall not be brought to the loading area nor attached to the detonating cord until everything else is in readiness for the blast.
#### W. E. Williams as County Judge, and W. H. Milton, v. John Capehart, as Admr.

Hocker, J.—

(On petition for rehearing.)

A petition for rehearing has been filed in this case, in which several matters are stated as affording reasons why County Judge Williams could not enforce the rule nisi issued against W. H. Milton as administrator, by the County Judge’s predecessor in office. These matters are not set forth in the answer to the writ of mandamus, nor is there the slightest reference to them in the brief filed by the plaintiffs in error. The peremptory writ of mandamus simply commands the County Judge to “require the said W. EL Milton as said Administrator to obey the rule nisi forthwith, or show cause why he fails to do so, and proceed in other respects according to law.” If W. Et. Milton as administrator has any good and sufficient defense to the rule, there is no reason why he may not set it up by return, and in this way the merits of his defense may be legally tested. Such a defense cannot be set up in a petition for rehearing in this court. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Taylor and Parkhill, J. J., concur;

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**CARL ROBINSON,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON**
**PLEAS,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 59 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of July, 2015, the Application for Leav e to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED

**, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordina**  **ry Relief is**

GRANTED **to the extent it seeks mandamus relief, and the common pleas court is** 

DIRECTED **to dispose of the pending petition within 90 days.**
#### § 1610.16 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Gregory T. Lucier, Chief Executive Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory T. Lucier  
|                      |  |  |  | Gregory T. Lucier      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 27899-5-II.

Division Two.

November 14, 2002.]

#### Walter Patrick, *Appellant,*v. The Society for Creative Anachronism, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 01-2-00428-3, Diane M. Woolard, J., entered September 7, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*William C. Prime, Appellant.

(Argued October 6, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*571
      *Francis J. Duffy*for appellant.

*Walter A. Ferris, District Attorney (William F. Horan*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
exv10w3





Exhibit
10.3


First Amendment To

Purchase and Sale Agreement

And Joint Escrow Instructions

(TSG — LITTLE VALLEY)




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (this
“Agreement”), dated as of September 3, 2009, is by and between TSG LITTLE VALLEY, LP, a California
limited partnership (“Seller”), and SPT LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO., LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (“Buyer”), and amends that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow
Instructions dated as of September 30, 2008 as previously amended by those certain
Amended/Supplemental Escrow Instructions dated October 16, 2008 and October 27, 2008, October 27,
2008, November 11, 2008, November 25, 2008, December 30, 2008, January 13, 2009, January 27, 2009,
February 24, 2009 and that certain undated Corrective Amendment (as amended, the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement unless otherwise
defined herein. To the extent of any inconsistency between the terms set forth in the Agreement and
this Amendment, the terms set forth in this Amendment shall control.



     Seller and Buyer hereby reinstate the Agreement and further agree to amend the Agreement as
follows:


1. The defined term “Land” is revised to mean all the properties described on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto.



2. The defined term “Purchase Price” is revised to be Nine Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars
($9,600,000.00).



3. The defined term “Deposit” is revised to mean Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). The Deposit
shall be immediately released to Seller, and shall not be refundable to Buyer except upon a
termination of this Agreement as a result of Seller’s default of a material obligation under this
Agreement occurring prior to the Close of Escrow or a failure of an express condition precedent
under this Agreement to Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property.



4. The Close of Escrow shall occur on or before November 30, 2009.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint
Escrow Instructions as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TSG LITTLE VALLEY, L.P., a California limited

partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Portfolio Partners, Inc., a California
 Corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Stevan J. Gromet 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Stevan J. Gromet, President






[signatures continued on next page]




Page 1 of 2









 








[signatures
continued from prior  page]




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	SPT LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO., LLC, a
Delaware
limited liability company
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By:	 	The Shopoff Corporation, a Delaware

corporation, its General Partner
	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ William A. Shopoff 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	William A. Shopoff, President







Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.21 Agency responsibilities. ( a ) Each Department of Labor agency which has delinquent debts owed under its program is responsible for collecting its claims by means of administrative offset, in accordance with guidelines established by the Chief Financial Officer.
( b ) Before collecting a claim by means of administrative offset, the responsible agency must ensure that administrative offset is feasible, allowable and appropriate, and must notify the debtor of the Department's policies for collecting a claim by means of administrative offset.
( c ) Whether collection by administrative offset is feasible is a determination to be made by the creditor agency on a case-by-case basis, in the exercise of sound discretion. Agencies shall consider not only whether administrative offset can be accomplished, both practically and legally, but also whether offset is best suited to further and protect all of the Government's interests. In appropriate circumstances, agencies may give due consideration to the debtor's financial condition, and are not required to use offset in every instance in which there is an available source of funds. Agencies may also consider whether offset would substantially interfere with or defeat the purposes of the program authorizing the payments against which offset is contemplated.
( d ) Before advising the debtor that the delinquent debt will be subject to administrative offset, the agency head (or designee) responsible for administering the program under which the debt arose shall review the claim and determine that the debt is valid and overdue. In the case where a debt arises under the programs of two or more Department of Labor agencies, or in such other instances as the Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, may deem appropriate, the Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, may determine which agency (or agencies), or official (or officials), shall have responsibility for carrying out the provisions of this subpart.
( e ) Administrative offset shall be considered by agencies only after attempting to collect a claim under Section 3(a) of the Federal Claims Collection Act, except that no claim under this Act that has been outstanding for more than 10 years after the Government's right to collect the debt first accrued may be collected by means of administrative offset, unless facts material to the right to collect the debt were not known and could not reasonably have been known by the official of the Agency who was charged with the responsibility to discover and collect such debts. When the debt first accrued should be determined according to existing laws regarding the accrual of debts, such as under 28 U.S.C. 2415.