alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2600

2550

2600

2600

2650

2600

2550

2650

2500

2600

2550

2600 G RD

18 RD

CO RD B B RD

J J RD

17 RD

22 RD

CO RD 23 23 RD

C RD

21 RD

F RD

D RD

20 RD

E RD

CO RD 20

G RD

18 RD

CO RD B B RD

J J RD

17 RD

22 RD

CO RD 23 23 RD

C RD

21 RD

F RD

D RD

20 RD

E RD

CO RD 20

OP98

OP23

OP98

OP23

OP23

OP23

Crooked

Creek

Crooked Creek

Cudahay

Mine

A RT ESI AN

VA LL EY

41

39

41

40

41

41

41

43

41

44

41

45

41

46

41

47

41

48

41

49

41

50

41

38

41

51000mN

41

39

41

40

41

41

41

42

41

43

41

44

41

45

41

46

41

47

41

48

41

49

41

50

41

38000mN

3

80 381 383 384 385 386 387 3

88

3

80 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 3

79000mE 3

89

770 000FEET

800 000FEET

FEET

27'30"

25'

27'30"

17'30"

100°22'30" 17'30"

100°22'30"

37°30' 37°30'

100°15'

37°22'30" 37°22'30" 3

89000m

E

1 580000

1 620 000

FEET

25'

20'

20' 100°15'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

MEADE NE, KS

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

MEADE NE QUADRANGLE

KANSAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14S

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads........National Transportation Dataset, 2006

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2006

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Kansas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 48 ́

14 MILS

6° 18 ́

112 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14S

LG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Meade NW Meade NE

Missler

Montezuma

SE

Meade

Ensign SW

Fowler

Fowler SW

Montezuma

KANSAS
[No. 20547-9-III.

Division Three.

October 22, 2002.]

#### Robert L. Schertenleib, et al., *Respondents,*v. Barbara Schnell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, No. 99-2-00262-0, Jack Burchard, J., entered September 5, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Kato, A.C.J., and Sweeney, J.
#### In the Matter of Irem H. Stryker, Jr., Appellant, against The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Argued May 26', 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*621
      *Theodore H. Kenworth*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (.Arthur Bainbridge Hoff, Paxton Blair*and *Jeremiah M. Evarts*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit
31.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, David
Sackler, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer and Financial Officer, certify
that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Continental Beverage and
Nutrition, Inc.,
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure
controls and procedures 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
quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and
 
 6. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: November
      22, 2005/s/
      David SacklerChief
      Executive Officer and Financial Officer
#### James Breeze, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Breeze, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 11, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*529
      *John F. Finn, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Ralph W. Thomas*of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

*Michael Halperin*and *Robert Morris*for Katherine Lavine, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: O’Brien, J.
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 **OF**
 **PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **AND**
 **PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTO OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Albert
H. Pleus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 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 on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of a21, Inc.
 
 I, Jose
A. Perez, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 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 on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of a21, Inc.
 
 Pursuant
to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
certification if being furnished and is not deemed filed.
 
 
 By: /s/
      ALBERT H. PLEUS
      ----------------------------------
      Albert H. Pleus
      Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer)
      
      
      By: /s/
      JOSE A. PEREZ
      ----------------------------------
      Jose A. Perez
      Principal Financial Officer
      
      
      Dated:
      May 13, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-63280, Form S-8 No. 333-93251, Form S-8 No. 033-62433, Form
S-8 No. 333-12585, Form S-8 No. 333-46953, Form S-8 No. 333-61911, Form S-8 No.
333-51330 and Form S-3 No. 333-65795) pertaining to The Lamson & Sessions Co.
Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan, the Deferred Compensation Plan for
Nonemployee Directors, The Lamson & Sessions Co. Deferred Savings Plan, The
Lamson & Sessions Co. 1998 Incentive Equity Plan and the 1988 Incentive Equity
Performance Plan, of our report dated February 13, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Lamson & Sessions Co.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 3, 2004.

                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
February 13, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELVIN ALLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

E. BIRDSONG, M.D.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15568 

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-04109-JST 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018**

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Kelvin Allen, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15568 

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Allen failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were 

deliberately indifferent in treating Allen’s back problems. See id. at 1057-60 (a 

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a mere difference in medical 

opinion, or even medical negligence, is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Supervisory 

liability exists . . . if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the 

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the

constitutional violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion to 

appoint counsel because Allen did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of 

review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider matters not properly presented to the district court. See 

Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058, 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(explaining that where “the complaint does not include the necessary factual 
3 17-15568 

allegations to state a claim, raising such claim in a summary judgment motion is 

insufficient to present the claim to the district court”). 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**PRINCIPAL
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      Albert
      H. Pleus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006
      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
      on
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of a21, Inc.





I,
      Thomas
      Costanza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006
      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
      on
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of a21, Inc.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.


By:
                  /s/ ALBERT H. PLEUS
                ____________________________
                Albert
                  H. Pleus
                Chairman
                  and Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)
                
                
                By:
                  /s/ THOMAS COSTANZA
                ____________________________
                Thomas
                  Costanza
                Vice
                  President and Chief Financial Officer
                (Principal
                  Financial Officer)
                
                Dated:
                  August 21, 2006
A-AA+Skip to content

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

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Special Education /
              - 11.9 Special Education—Change in Dropout Rate among Students Ages 14-21 Served under IDEA, Part B

## Table 11.9: Special Education—Change in Dropout Rate[1] among Students Ages 14 to 21 Served under IDEA, Part B: Fall 2010 School Year to Fall 2011 School Year

----

----

 

----

#### 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.
#### § 2530.201-1 Coverage; general.

Coverage of the provisions of part 2 of title I of the Act is determined under a multiple step process. First, the plan must be an employee benefit plan as defined under section 3(3) of the Act and § 2510.3-3. (See also the definitions of employee welfare benefit plan, section 3(1) of the Act and § 2510.3-1 and employe pension benefit plan, section 3(2) of the Act and § 2510.3-2). Second, the employee benefit plan must be subject to title I of the Act. Coverage for title I is specified in section 4 of the Act. Third, section 201 of the Act specifies the employee benefit plans subject to title I which are not subject to the minimum standards of part 2 of title I of the Act. Section 2530.201-2 specifies the employee benefit plans subject to title I of the Act which are exempted from coverage under part 2 of title I of the Act and this part (2530).
§ 38.77 Extension of deadline to file complaint. ( a ) The Director may extend the 30-day time limit for filing a complaint: ( 1 ) If a recipient does not include in its Notice of Final Action the required notice about the complainant's right to file with the Director, as described in § 38.72(b)(5); or
( 2 ) For other good cause shown.
( b ) The complainant has the burden of proving to the Director that the time limit should be extended.
#### In the Matter of Samuel H. Kornbluth, Respondent, against William G. Rice et al., Constituting the New York State Civil Service Commission et al., Appellants.

Argued September 30, 1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*598
      *Joseph M. Proskauer*and *A. Michael Katz*for Harry Roistacher, appellant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Henry Epstein*and *Patrick H. Clune*of counsel), for State Civil Service Commission, appellant.

*J. Alvin Van Bergh*for Meyer Jacobs et al., *amici curiæ.*

*Roy P. Monohan*and *Francis L. Field*for respondent.

*George R. Fearon*for Disabled American Veterans of the World War, Department of New York, *amicus curiæ.*

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O'Brien, HubbSj Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer



I, Michel Attias, Chief Executive Officer of Patriot Motorcycle Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: October 27, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Michel Attias                    
|Michel Attias Chief Executive
Officer
#### STATE ex FORGEY v DAVIS, et

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Lawrence Co

Decided April 9, 1930

A. Z. Blair, Portsmouth, for relator.

A. J. Layne, Ironton, for respondents.

*320BY THE COURT

There is no statutory provision in Ohio, or was not at the time the election in question was held, for contesting the election of members of the board of education of a county district. It has’been determined in this state that where no statutory proceeding for contesting an election is provided that an action in quo warranto lies. State ex rel v. Patterson, 84 OS. 89. The doctrine of this case was reiterated in Link v. Karb, 89 OS. 326, 348, and in Prentiss v. Dittmer, 93 OS. 314, 322.

It has been argued in this case that this court in an action of this kind sits as a commission and is limited in its powers by statutes referred to. This position is not sound. It has been held that under the statute passed for contesting elections pursuant to Article II, Section 21, of the Constitution this court acts as a commission rather than in a judicial capacity. By Article IV of the Constitution, however, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are given original jurisdiction in quo warranto and the jame language is used in conferring jurisdiction on both these courts. The jurisdiction of the two courts is therefore complete and equal, and this court has all the jurisdiction that .any court has in a proceeding of this kind.

The demurrer to the petition is overruled

The relator will be required to give security for costs by filing a bond in the sum of five hundred dollars, with sureties to the satisfaction of the clerk of this court.

The respondents are given leave to answer within ten days after the costs have been secured as required hereby.

A like disposition, of course, is made of the demurrers in the companion cases.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.