alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2007 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Jeremy Burton, Chief Executive Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that, to my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Serena Software, Inc. at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JEREMY BURTONJeremy Burton President and Chief
Executive Officer And Director


Date: July 18, 2007

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### NEW YORK CENTRAL RY CO v P U C

Ohio . Supreme Court

No 21772.

Decided Dec. 11, 1929

Marshal, CJ„ Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Major Green, Appellant.

Argued June 3, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*Charles Pope Caldwell, Richard J. Barry*and *Henry P. Lipscomb*for appellant.

*Charles P. Sullivan, District Attorney (John H. W. Krogmann*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
§ 2700.47 Contents of application. ( a ) An application for temporary relief shall contain: ( 1 ) A showing of substantial likelihood that the findings and decision of the Judge or the Commission will be favorable to the applicant;
( 2 ) A statement of the specific relief requested; and
( 3 ) A showing that such relief will not adversely affect the health and safety of miners in the affected mine.
( b ) An application for temporary relief may be supported by affidavits or other evidence.
Exhibit 23
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
One City Centre
St. Louis, MO 63101

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-60996 and 33-52357 of Laclede Gas Company and its subsidiary companies on
Form S-3 and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-38413, 33-57573 and 33-64933
of Laclede Gas Company and its subsidiary companies on Form S-8 of our
report dated November 21, 1996 (December 20, 1996 as to Note 8) appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Laclede Gas Company and its subsidiary
companies for the year ended September 30, 1996.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

December 20, 1996 


  































                                   76
#### CLEVELAND RAILWAY CO v EIFERT

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10474.

Decided March 3, 1930

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Ry Co.

Arthur H. & Fred S. Day, Cleveland, for Eifert.

LEVINE, J.

A great deal of stress is put upon the failure of defendant in error to show that the car started with a violent, unusual or extraordinary jerk. We agree with the contention of the plaintiff in error in that respect. Nevertheless, upon a perusal of the entire record it appears to us that there is evidence tending to show that Anna Seifert, who was ,a passenger was not given a reasonable opportunity to alight. This duty to afford passengers a reasonable opportunity to alight, and the duty of exercising ordinary care in the observance of that duty, is so well settled as to need no further discussion.

The judgment of the municipal court will therefore be affirmed.

Vickery, PJ., and Sullivan, J, concur.
#### Mary McCarthy, as Administratrix of the Estate of James McCarthy, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.

Argued May 21, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*606
      *Charles E. Spencer, John H. Hughes*and *M. J. Allen*for appellant.

*M. Francis Malone*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs. Loughran, Finch and Rippey JJ.
LETTER AGREEMENT


         Saratoga Holdings I, Inc. (SHI) a Texas Corporation,  by this agreement
agrees to pay the sum of $5,000 per month to Saratoga  Resources,  Inc.  (SRI) a
Texas  Corporation.  SRI  Agrees  to cover  office  overhead  for SHI  including
secretarial  salaries,  office space,  telephone  service,  office equipment and
office supplies necessary for the day to day operations of SHI.

         The term of the  agreement  is for a  period  of 24  months  commencing
January 1, 2001 and terminating on January 1, 2003.

         Any and all  obligations  that have accrued at the  termination  of the
agreement shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

         SRI agrees to defer any and all payment under this agreement until such
time as SHI has the  financial  resources to fulfill its  obligation  under this
agreement.

                                           Sincerely,


                                           Thomas F. Cooke
                                           President of Saratoga Resources, Inc.


Agreed and Accepted


Thomas F. Cooke
CEO, Chairman of Saratoga Holdings I, Inc.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3504 — UTC/IHI/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 174/18)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13.

(2)OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 40, 13.2.1998, p. 17.

(3)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32. Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

----
#### § 2705.3 Procedure for requests pertaining to individuals' records in a records system.

An individual shall submit a request to the Executive Director to determine if a system of records named by the individual contains a record pertaining to the individual. If a record pertaining to the individual does exist in the specified system of records and the individual wishes to review that record he or she shall submit a request to the Executive Director of the Commission which states the individual's desire to review his or her record.
§ 2570.71 Procedures for review by the Secretary. ( a ) Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Secretary shall establish a briefing schedule which shall be served on all parties of record. Upon motion of one or more of the parties, the Secretary may, in his or her discretion, permit the submission of reply briefs.
( b ) The Secretary shall issue a decision as promptly as possible after receipt of the briefs of the parties. The Secretary may affirm, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, the decision on appeal and shall issue a statement of reasons and bases for the action(s) taken. Such decision by the Secretary shall be final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                                     23,267
<SECURITIES>                                               22,430
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           46,277
<PP&E>                                                     30,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                             26,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             55,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       7,182
<BONDS>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                       20
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 22,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               55,268
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               46
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           10,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (10,307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (10,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (10,307)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (0.27)
        



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Anthony Garlaus, Raymond Norton, Watson Edwards and Harry Eisenberg, Appellants.

Argued April 27, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*Maurice Edélbaum*and *E. Ivan Rubenstein*for Anthony Garlaus, appellant.

*Burton B. Turkus*and *Joseph Weiss*for Raymond Norton, appellant.

*David Krauss*and *Julius Hollander*for Watson Edwards, appellant.

*Hyman Wank*and *Abraham H. Kesselman*for Harry Eisenberg, appellant.

*William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney (Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

As to each defendant: Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Mark E. Woodward, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SERENA Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SERENA Software, Inc. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to SERENA Software, Inc. and will be retained by SERENA Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By:

/s/    Mark E. WoodwardMark E. Woodward President and Chief
Executive Officer And Director




Date: September 12, 2003



I, Robert I. Pender, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SERENA Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SERENA Software, Inc. A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to SERENA Software, Inc. and will be retained by SERENA Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By:

/s/    Robert I. Pender, Jr.Robert I. Pender, Jr. Vice President,
Finance And Administration, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial And Accounting Officer) And Director




Date: September 12, 2003
You are here: EPA Home Pesticides Science & Policy Advisory Committee Pesticide
Program Dialogue Committee Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee July 10-11, 2013
Meeting



# Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee July 10- 11, 2013 Meeting

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.

Agenda (PDF) (2 pp, 70k) Background Materials Session I - Updates

Resources (3 pp, 162k) Session II - Endangered Species Act Update Endangered Species Act Update (12 pp, 109k)

Session IV- Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides PPDC Meeting: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Update (35 pp, 716k) Session V - 21st Century Toxicology Activities OPP 21st Century Activities: Guidance, Policies, and Rule (PDF) (7 pp, 180k) Toxicology for the 21st Century/New Integrat ed Testing Strategies Workgroup (PDF) (33 pp, 1,009k) Session VI - Endocrine Screening Program Update

Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides

- Stakeholder Engagement (10 pp, 121k) Session VII - PPDC Work Group on Comparative Safety Statements Update on Dfe and Factual Statements Pilots (PDF) (4pp, 178k)

Session VIII - Pollinator Protection Workgroup on Pollinator Protection (PDF) (8 pp, 205k) Session IX- PPDC Work Group on Public Health Update on PPDC Public Health Work Group (PDF) (7 pp, 51k) 

## Pesticides: Science and Policy htt p : // www.e p a. g ov /p esticides /pp dc / 2013 /j ul y/j ul y 2013-mt g .html

Last u p dated on Frida y, October 18

, 2013 

### Pa g e 1 of 1 Pesticide Pro g ram Dialo g ue Committee Jul y 10-11, 2013 Meetin g | Pesticides | US EPA

10/18/2013 htt p ://www.e p a. g ov/ p esticides/ pp dc/2013/ j ul y / j ul y 2013-mt g .html
#### DEUBEL et v DEARWESTER et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3526.

Decided Jan 13, 1930

John O. Eckert and Murphy & Murphy, all of Cincinnati, for Deubel, et.

Cohen, Mack & Hurtig and Robert A. Kramer, all of Cincinnati, for Dearwester, et.

*433ROSS, J.

It is contended that there was no mistake in the descriptions.

We think that the physical presence of the house and improvements upon the property conveyed by the original grantor indicated beyond question that the grantor intended to convey all the premises occupied by said improvements to Magdalena Dearwester’s predecessors in title, and such deed having been made while the original grantor John still owned both lots, that subsequent grantees of the adjacent lot, now owned by the plaintiffs, took title to such adjacent lot impressed with that intention manifest by the physical occupation of the premises.

The court of Common Pleas reformed the several deeds involved in both chains of title to correspond with this intention, and we find no error in this judgment.

Cushing, PJ, and Hamilton, J, 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.

#### §§ 1926.409-1926.415 [Reserved]
§ 1910.144 Safety color code for marking physical hazards. ( a ) *Color identification* — ( 1 ) *Red.* Red shall be the basic color for the identification of: ( i ) *Fire protection equipment and apparatus.* [Reserved]
( ii ) *Danger.* Safety cans or other portable containers of flammable liquids having a flash point at or below 80 °F, table containers of flammable liquids (open cup tester), excluding shipping containers, shall be painted red with some additional clearly visible identification either in the form of a yellow band around the can or the name of the contents conspicuously stenciled or painted on the can in yellow. Red lights shall be provided at barricades and at temporary obstructions. Danger signs shall be painted red.
( iii ) *Stop.* Emergency stop bars on hazardous machines such as rubber mills, wire blocks, flat work ironers, etc., shall be red. Stop buttons or electrical switches which letters or other markings appear, used for emergency stopping of machinery shall be red.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) *Yellow.* Yellow shall be the basic color for designating caution and for marking physical hazards such as: Striking against, stumbling, falling, tripping, and “caught in between.”
( b ) [Reserved]
[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 43 FR 49748, Oct. 24, 1978; 49 FR 5322, Feb. 10, 1984; 61 FR 9239, Mar. 7, 1996; 72 FR 71069, Dec. 14, 2007]
A-AA+Skip to content

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

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Population and Prevelance /
              - 1.6 Civilians Ages 18-64 Living the Community for the U.S.

## Table 1.6: Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community for the United States and States, by Disability Status: 2012

----

----

 

----

#### 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.
#### Regina Quadrozzi et al., Respondents, v Adedayo Salako et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[697 NYS2d 671]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Adedayo Salako and Thomas Salako appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 16, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the appellants established a prima facie case that the injured plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury in the subject collision *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence that the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230, 235; *Lopez v Senatore, 65*NY2d 1017). As the plaintiffs offered no evidence in opposition to the appellants’ motion, they did not raise a triable question of fact on the issue. Therefore, the appellants’ motion -for summary judgment should have been granted. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
§ 2704.105 Standards for awards. ( a ) A prevailing applicant may receive an award of fees and expenses incurred in connection with a proceeding, or in a significant and discrete substantive portion of the proceeding, unless the position of the Secretary was substantially justified. The position of the Secretary includes, in addition to the position taken by the Secretary in the adversary adjudication, the action or failure to act by the Secretary upon which the adversary adjudication is based. The burden of proof that an award should not be made to a prevailing applicant because the Secretary's position was substantially justified is on the Secretary, who may avoid an award by showing that his position was reasonable in law and fact. An award will be reduced or denied if the applicant has unduly or unreasonably protracted the underlying proceeding or if special circumstances make the award unjust.
( b ) If the demand of the Secretary is substantially in excess of the decision of the Commission and is unreasonable when compared with such decision, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission shall award to an eligible applicant who does not prevail the fees and expenses related to defending against the excessive demand, unless the applicant has committed a willful violation of law or otherwise acted in bad faith or special circumstances make an award unjust. The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the Secretary's demand is substantially in excess of the Commission's decision; the Secretary may avoid an award by establishing that the demand is not unreasonable when compared to that decision. As used in this section, “demand” means the express demand of the Secretary which led to the adversary adjudication, but does not include a recitation by the Secretary of the maximum statutory penalty— ( 1 ) In the administrative complaint, or
( 2 ) Elsewhere when accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount.
[63 FR 63176, Nov. 12, 1998, as amended at 71 FR 44210, Aug. 4, 2006]