alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


To the Board of Directors
of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and any amendments thereto: (1) No.
333-06199 on Form S-8; (2) No. 333-34019 on Form S-8; (3) No. 333-91679 on Form
S-3; (4) No. 333-30194 on Form S-3; (5) No. 333-98901 on Form S-3; and (6) No.
333-99311 on Form S-8, of our report dated January 24, 2003, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. as of December 31, 2002
and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and changes in
stockholders' equity for the year ended December 31, 2002, which report appears
or is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form
10-K of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.

                                       /s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.


Phoenix, Arizona
March 25, 2003
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALBERT McKEEL, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-cv-12815 

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#18], 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#14], AND 

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#15] 

This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment as 

to Plaintiff Albert McKeel’s claim for judicial review of Defendant’s, Commissioner of Social 

Security, denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti, who issued a Report and Recommendation on May 20, 2015, 

recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and deny 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Magistrate Judge Patti further recommended that 

the Court reverse the Commissioner’s findings, and remand this case to the Commissioner and 

the Administrative Law Judge under Sentence Four of § 405(g) for further consideration 

consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 

Upon review of the Parties’ briefing and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Patti reached the correct 

conclusion. Therefore, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Patti’s 

2:14-cv-12815-GAD-APP Doc # 19 Filed 06/26/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 505
2 

May 20, 2015 Report and Recommendation [#18] as this Court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#15] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment [#14] is GRANTED. 

This cause of action is DISMISSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 26, 2015 

 _/s/ Gershwin A. Drain_________ 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 United States District Court Judge 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on June 26, 2015, using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties. 

 s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

2:14-cv-12815-GAD-APP Doc # 19 Filed 06/26/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 506
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Wescorp
Energy Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, each of
the undersigned Doug Biles, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Terry Mereniuk, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each of the undersigneds
knowledge and belief:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: November 19, 2007 | /s/ Doug
      Biles                   
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------------
|                         | Doug Biles, Chief Executive Officer    
|                         |                                        
|Dated: November 19, 2007 | /s/ Terry
      Mereniuk               
|                         | Terry Mereniuk, Chief Financial Officer

---
§ 96.88 Administrative costs. ( a ) *Costs of planning and administration.* Any expenditure for governmental functions normally associated with administration of a public assistance program must be included in determining administrative costs subject to the statutory limitation on administrative costs, regardless of whether the expenditure is incurred by the State, a subrecipient, a grantee, or a contractor of the State.
( b ) *Administrative costs for territories and Indian tribes.* For Indian tribes, tribal organizations and territories with allotments of $20,000 or less, the limitation on the cost of planning and administering the low-income home energy assistance program shall be 20 percent of funds payable and not transferred for use under another block grant. For tribes, tribal organizations and territories with allotments over $20,000, the limitation on the cost of planning and administration shall be $4,000 plus 10% of the amount of funds payable (and not transferred for use under another block grant) that exceeds $20,000.
[52 FR 37967, Oct. 13, 1987]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 04-5352 September Term, 2005

02cv01984

Filed On: October 21, 2005 [926574]

Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan,

Appellees

 v.

Federal Election Commission,

Appellant

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards, Sentelle,* Henderson,

Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown and Griffith, Circuit

Judges

O R D E R

Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been

circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the

judges of the court in regular, active service did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon

consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

* Circuit Judge Sentelle would grant the petition for rehearing en banc.
- 2197
- 2198
#### § 116.940 Guards in vehicle spaces.

On a vessel authorized to carry one or more vehicles, suitable chains, cables, or other barriers must be installed at the end of each vehicle runway. In addition, temporary rails or equivalent protection must be installed in way of each vehicle ramp, in compliance with § 116.900 of this part, when the vessel is underway.
#### JOHN J. TURLEY, PLAINTIFF, v. PUBLIC SERVICE RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gummeee, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Katzenbach.

*134Eor the rule, *Henry H. Fryling.*

Contra, *Francis A. Gordon.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, a motorcycle officer on the police force of the city of Elizabeth, was run down by a trolley car of the Public Service Railway Company while on duty. He brought suit against the company to recover compensation for the injuries received by him, and the trial resulted in a verdict in his favor for $19,500. The present rule to show cause having been allowed, we are now asked to make it absolute upon the sole ground that the award is excessive.

The plaintiff was severely injured and is permanently disabled ■ to a considerable extent. But, although no longer physically able to serve as a motorcycle officer, he has been retained in the employ of the police department of the municipality as a telephone operator, at the same salary that he was receiving before the occurrence of the accident. In other words, he has lost nothing by way of salary, and apparently .there is no more likelihood of his doing so than if he had remained in service as a motorcycle policeman.. In view of the fact that his earning capacity has not been diminished, we think it plain that the award of the jury is excessive. If the plaintiff will consent to a reduction of the amount to $15,000, he may enter judgment for that sum. Otherwise the rule to show cause will be made absolute.
#### § 110.01-4 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50380, Dec. 6, 1989]
#### §§ 605.55-605.60 [Reserved]
[No. 3416.]

#### Empire Ranch and Cattle Co. v. Ellis et al.

Quieting *Title*— Plaintiff’s *Title.*A defendant who shows no title in himself will not be heard to raise objections to the title of plaintiff. *Foster v. Olarlo,*21 Col. Ap., 192, followed.

*Appeal from Yuma County Court.*Hon. J. S. Hendrie, Judge.

Mr. August Muntzing, Mr. Egbert More, for appellant.

Mr. Isaac Pelton, for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Appellant, as plaintiff below, brought this action in the county court of Yuma county to quiet title to certain lands in Yuma county. Defendants Ellis and Clark answered, and also by cross complaint asked that title to the land in question be quieted in them. Shea disclaimed. On the trial plaintiff offered two certain tax deeds which were held by the court to be void on their face, and therefore inadmissible. These deeds, so offered by plain*394tiff, constituted its sole evidence of title. They were each void on their face for various reasons not necessary to point but. Indeed, appellant .makes no claim in its brief to the contrary, hut contents itself with certain objections to appellees’ title which cannot be raised by appellant, under the ruling in *Foster v. Clark,*21 Col. App., 192; 121 Pac., 130.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
- 3943
- 3944
- 3945
- 3946
- 3947
- 3948
- 3949
- 3950
- 3951
- 3952
- 3953
- 3954
- 3955
- 3956
- 3957
- 3958
- 3959
- 3960
- 3961
- 3962
- 3963
- 3964
- 3965
- 3966
- 3967
- 3968
- 3969
- 3970
- 3971
- 3972
- 3973
- 3974
- 3975
- 3976
- 3977
- 3978
- 3979
- 3980
- 3981
- 3982
- 3983
- 3984
- 3985
- 3986
- 3987
- 3988
- 3989
- 3990
- 3991
- 3992
- 3993
- 3994
- 3995
- 3996
- 3997
- 3998
- 3999
- 4000
- 4001
- 4002
- 4003
- 4004
- 4005
- 4006
- 4007
- 4008
- 4009
# CE2010009EN.01007401.xml

| 15.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 9/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 9/74

---

Thursday 9 October 2008EC-Ukraine Agreement in relation to preservation of commitments on trade in services *

P6_TA(2008)0468

European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and Ukraine in relation to preservation of commitments on trade in services contained in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (COM(2008)0220 — C6-0202/2008 — 2008/0087(CNS))

2010/C 9 E/15

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0220),

having regard to Articles 71(1) and 80(2) of the EC Treaty,

having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0202/2008),

having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0337/2008),

| 1. | Approves conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and Ukraine.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 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, James H. Mackaness,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that the Annual Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2010 (i) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.

Date: February 2, 2011



By:

/s/ JAMES H.
MACKANESS


Name:

James H. MackanessTitle:

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 8, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq*. (“the Act”), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 17 new standards have been initiated and 8 existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at                     *http://standards.ieee.org/​standardswire/​sba/​01-27-07.html.*

                    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 9, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 77061).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-1397  Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Hannah McGee, as Administratrix of the Estate of Patrick McGee, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The Town of West Seneca, Appellant.

*McGee*v. *Town of West Seneca,*129 App. Div. 935, affirmed.

(Argued December 10, 1909;

decided January 11, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 27,1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant’s negligence.

*William J. Evans*for appellant.

*Frederick G. Bagley, Thomas A. Sullivan*and *Robert Farrington*for respondent.

J udgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, Haight, .Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ. Absent: Cullen, Oh. J.
#### § 660.12 [Reserved]
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,096 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,337 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       827 
<INVENTORY>                                     56,573 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,589 
<PP&E>                                         124,887 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,366 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,439 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,836 
<BONDS>                                        100,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                        521 
<COMMON>                                             3 
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,784 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,439 
<SALES>                                        132,102 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,102 
<CGS>                                           99,702 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,536 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    76 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,019 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,946)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,609)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

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



In connection with the Annual Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc.and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the
"Report"). I, Stephen Rade, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.



By: /s/ Stephen Rade
    ------------------------------------
    Stephen Rade
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    May 18, 2005
§ 286.20 How is the amount of a Tribal Family Assistance Grant (TFAG) determined? ( a ) We will request and use data submitted by a State to determine the amount of a TFAG. The State data that we will request and use are the total Federal payments attributable to State expenditures, including administrative costs (which includes systems costs) for fiscal year 1994 under the former Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Emergency Assistance and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training programs, for all Indian families residing in the geographic service area or areas identified in the Tribe's letter of intent or Tribal Family Assistance Plan. ( 1 ) A Tribe must indicate its definition of “Indian family” in its Tribal Family Assistance Plan. Each Tribe may define “Indian family” according to its own criteria.
( 2 ) When we request the necessary data from the State, the State will have 30 days from the date of the request to submit the data. ( i ) If we do not receive the data requested from the State at the end of the 30-day period, we will so notify the Tribe.
( ii ) In cases where data is not received from the State, the Tribe will have 45 days from the date of the notification in which to submit relevant information. Relevant information may include, but is not limited to, Census Bureau data, data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, data from other Federal programs, and Tribal records. In such a case, we will use the data submitted by the Tribe to assist us in determining the amount of the TFAG. Where there are inconsistencies in the data, follow-up discussions with the Tribe and the State will ensue.
( b ) We will share the data submitted by the State under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section with the Tribe. The Tribe must submit to the Secretary a notice as to the Tribe's agreement or disagreement with such data no later than 45 days after the date of our notice transmitting the data from the State. During this 45-day period we will help resolve any questions the Tribe may have about the State-submitted data.
( c ) We will notify each Tribe that has submitted a TFAP of the amount of the TFAG. At this time, we will also notify the State of the amount of the reduction in its SFAG.
( d ) We will prorate TFAGs that are initially effective on a date other than October 1 of any given Federal fiscal year, based on the number of days remaining in the Federal fiscal year.
§ 108.207 Messrooms. ( a ) Each messroom that is not adjacent to the galley that serves it must be equipped with a steamtable.
( b ) Each messroom must seat the number of persons expected to eat in the messroom at one time.
Summary Table for the Nutrient Criteria Documents

These tables present the recommended EPA criteria for each of the aggregate nutrient

ecoregions for the following parameters: Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Chlorophyll

a, and Turbidity or Secchi. Criteria are presented for both Lakes & Reservoirs and

Rivers & Streams.
Aggregate Ecoregions Lakes and Reservoirs

Parameter Agg

EcorII

AggEcorIII

AggEcorIV

AggEcorV

AggEcorVI

AggEcorVII

AggEcorVIII

AggEcorIX

AggEcorXI

AggEcorXII

TP μg/L 8.75 17.00 20.00 33.00 37.5 14.75 8.00 20.00 8.00 10.00 TN mg/L 0.10 0.40 0.44 0.56 0.78 0.66 0.24 0.36 0.46 0.52 Chl a μg/L 1.90 3.40 2.00 

S

2.30

S

8.59

S

2.63 2.43 4.93 2.79

S

2.60 

Secchi(m) 

 4.50 2.70 2.00 1.30 1.36 3.33 4.93 1.53 2.86 2.10 
Aggregate Ecoregions for Rivers and Streams

Parameter Agg

EcorI 

AggEcorII 

AggEcorIII

AggEcorIV

AggEcor V

AggEcor VI

AggEcor VII

AggEcorVIII

AggEcorIX

AggEcorX

TP μg/L 47.00 10.00 21.88 23.00 67.00 76.25 33.00 10.00 36.56 128

*

TN mg/L 0.31 0.12 0.38 0.56 0.88 2.18 0.54 0.38 0.69 0.76 Chl a μg/L 1.80 1.08 1.78 2.40 3.00 2.70 1.50 0.63 0.93

S

2.10

S

Turb FTU/NTU 

 4.25 1.30 

 N

2.34 4.21 7.83 6.36 1.70

N

1.30 5.70 17.50 

*This value appears inordinately high and may either be a statistical anomaly condition. In any case, further regional investigation is indicated to determinmeasurement error, notational error, statistical anomaly, natural enriched cond

impacts.Turb - TurbidityChl 

a - Chlorophyll 

a measured by Fluorometric method, unless specified. S 

Spectrophotometric and T is for Trichromatic method.N for NTU. Unit of measurement for Turbidity.