alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1   Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  To the Shareholders and Trustees of NSTAR:  We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of NSTAR (the Company) and its subsidiaries as of June 30, 2006, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and retained earnings for each of the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005.  These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.  We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, retained earnings, and of cash flows for the year then ended, management's assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005; and in our report dated February 17, 2006, we expressed unqualified opinions thereon.  The consolidated financial statements and management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting referred to above are not presented herein.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Boston, Massachusetts
July 28, 2006
#### Arthur Schwarzenbach, Appellant, *v.*Oneonta Light and Power Company, Respondent.

*Schwarzenbach*v. *Oneonta Light & Power Co.,*144 App. Div. 884, modified.

(Argued December 18, 1912;

decided December 31, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 17, 1911, modifying and affirming, as modi*672fied, a judgment in favor of plaintiff'entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to restrain the defendant from flooding plaintiff’s lands and for damages.

*Alva Seybolt*for appellant.

*J. F. Thompson*for respondent.

Judgment of Appellate Division modified so as to suspend operation of injunction until January 1, 1914, and as modified affirmed, with costs in this court to appellant; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Willard Bartlett, J., dissents from suspension of injunction for any time. Absent: Werner, J.
From: Marti Sladek

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women"s reproductive health

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:57:55 PM

Please do not let the religious right dictate the terms of women's health care options,

especially when employees in secular positions at religious-affiliated organizations

are are concerned.

MARTI

Marti J. Sladek

Recovering Litigator & Crone

Speaking out on work, women, law & public policy

Linked-In, Facebook & Twitter
Exhibit 31.3
CERTIFICATIONS
     I, James H. Moar, Chief Operating Officer and former interim ChiefFinancial Officer of Identix Incorporated certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of IdentixIncorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         By:                             /s/ James H. Moar    James H. Moar
Preliminary Regulatory Determinations 3 - Chlorate References
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

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


        In connection with the annual report of Spire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB (the "Report") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James
F. Parslow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:     March 21, 2006              By: /s/ James F. Parslow
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James F. Parslow
                                           Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Order entered March 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00914-CR

CODY JOHN HOLT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 062011

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On February 10, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions 

of law regarding appellant’s motion to suppress his statement. We also ordered court reporter 

Cindy Bardwell to either file the reporter’s record of the April 1, 2014 proceedings or written 

verification that the proceedings conducted in chambers were not recorded. We have received a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law 

and a letter from Ms. Bardwell saying the April 1, 2014 in chambers proceedings were not 

recorded.

The State’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1222

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

89 River Street in Hoboken, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Frank Sinatra Post

Office Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 24, 2001

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 89 River Street in Hoboken, New Jersey,

as the ‘‘Frank Sinatra Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FRANK SINATRA POST OF4 FICE BUILDING.

5 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo6 cated at 89 River Street in Hoboken, New Jersey, shall

7 be known and designated as the ‘‘Frank Sinatra Post Of8 fice Building’’.
2

•S 1222 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the Frank Sinatra Post Office Building.

Æ
```

[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Notices]               
[Page 28848]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my10-103]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7025]

 
Determination and Certification Under Section 40a of the Arms 
Export Control Act

    Pursuant to section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
2781), and Executive Order 11958, as amended, I hereby determine and 
certify to the Congress that the following countries are not 
cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts: Cuba; 
Eritrea; Iran; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North 
Korea); Syria; Venezuela.
    This determination and certification shall be transmitted to the 
Congress and published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
James B. Steinberg,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-12437 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
y



### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 15

- 00175

- CV

MANOWAR AZIZ AND AB TRANSPORT AND TRUCKING , Appellant s

V.

ABDUL WARIS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF PROGRESSIVE
TRUCKING, INC., AS SHAREHOLDER , Appellee

Appeal from 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- 09984).

TO THE 133RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT C OURT OF HARRIS COUNTY,

GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 2 7 th day of August 201 5 , the cause upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on December 19, 2014. After due consideration, the Court gran ts the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellee. Accordingly, the Court

dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that costs be taxed against appellant.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.
Judgment rendered August 2 7

, 201 5

. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale

.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

November 6, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
From: Robert Burch

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Public comment

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:37:47 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20509

Conference Calendar

 

MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MELINDA HARMON, U.S. District Judge, United States District

Judge, individually; DON J. DEGABRIELLE, The Assistant United

States Government Attorney, individually; JOHN DOE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-155

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the dismissal with prejudice

of his suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and

other grounds. Pajooh argues that defendants DeGabrielle and

Judge Harmon are not absolutely immune from suit for damages. 

Judge Harmon enjoys absolute immunity because Pajooh’s

claims for damages arose out of acts she performed in the
No. 03-20509

-2-

exercise of her judicial functions. See Mitchell v. McBryde, 944

F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir. 1991). DeGabrielle enjoys absolute

immunity because his conduct was “intimately associated with the

judicial phase of the criminal process.” See Beck v. Texas State

Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir. 2000).

Pajooh argues that the district court erred when it

determined that he had failed to state a claim upon which

declaratory or injunctive relief could be granted. Pajooh’s

unsupported conclusory accusations do not suffice to prevent a

motion to dismiss. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d

376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1287 (2003). 

The district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Pajooh’s suit is

AFFIRMED.
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  322                                                               Trade Date: 8/11/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                                     Issue Date:  8/14/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementAugust  11, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QPK1     4.15%                       02/15/10           100%                    1.175%                Monthly            YES           NO                                                               

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$2,651,000.00                $2,619,850.75         ABN AMROInc.                 09/15/03                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $216.729 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
Page | of 1

IY 4 V4 OGL. Sf

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION TG / JC

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS NEC TLGBU-LC SEP 02 2011
BRANCH |As of: September 02, 2011

Received: August 19, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce6140
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of

Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0165
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

a7
thkvosar 2 Submitter Information

Address: 53704-3704
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

1 also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
areality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
From: Heather Tanner

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraceptive coverage

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:34:32 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sincerely,

Heather Tanner

Heather J. Tanner

Associate Professor

History Department

The Ohio State University

tanner.87@osu.edu

419-755-4368

Please note: This message and any response to it may constitute a public

record, and therefore may be available upon request in accordance with

Ohio public records law (ORD 149.43).