alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001037189
<NAME>                                             SB Westport Futures Fund L.P.

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                      88,995,654
<SECURITIES>                                                 2,800,123
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  331,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            92,127,198
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              92,127,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        4,619,982
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  87,507,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                92,127,198
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              (818,561)
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             1,010,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (1,829,471)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (1,829,471)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      (20.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0



</TABLE>
From: eddavis50@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:18:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gilbert Davis

Bedford, PA 15522
Exhibit 33.2
 MANAGEMENTS ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE
 Company
  Platform i e
 Applicable Servicing Criteria
 Period
  
    
    The Companys management is responsible for assessing the Companys compliance with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
    
    The Companys management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.
    
    Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
  CITIBANK, N.A.By:
    /s/ Karen MontbachKaren MontbachIts:             Managing Director
From: godleywife5@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:23:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Marilyn White

Ada, MI 49301
Exhibit 32.1

# Certification Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2004 (the
Report) of Immucor, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I certify, 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 Registrant.

August 16, 2004

/s/ Dr. Gioacchino De Chirico

Dr. Gioacchino De Chirico
Chief Executive Officer
_': ad z _s= €atr

2 Manager

Technical Relations

^, DC

Philips Lighting Company

Tel 202-775-4703 1560 Lisbon Road

Fax 222-887-D639

Lewiston, Maine 04240

Aark_L-0e rn 207-784-3591

FAX 207-786-8924

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27B-5
From: bergstresser.c@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carol Bergstresser

Ocala, FL 34471
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-92053, 33-2171, 33-17848 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 1), 33-33803, 33-33807, 33-39323, 33-36911, 33-45176, 33-45231, 33-45233, 33-56952, 33-58708, 33-72158, 033-55265 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 1), 033-60379, 033-63547, 333-11639, 333-15923, 333-29099, 333-70459, 333-74371, 333-34726, 333-44508, 333-50992, 333-59504, 333-64988, 333-76764 and 333-109983 of 3Com Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated August 5, 2005, relating to the financial statements (which includes and explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”) and financial statement schedule of 3Com Corporation and to management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of3Com Corporation for the year ended June 3, 2005.  

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Boston, Massachusetts

August 5, 2005
This appendix is only available from MassDEP as an electronic file entitled “CMAQ Ozone Predictions versus 2002 Ozone
Observations for the OTR States”
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.



/s/    Michael Prince
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
June 11, 2008
No. 63277.

protest 58/22338 (New York).

#### Arcaro and Dan’s Saddlery, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

Tbe protest was dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Bernstein, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:				            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and				            (2)        Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:  November 11, 2005 | /s/ Robert M. Bernstein                                    |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | By:  Robert M. Bernstein                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|                                | Its:  President                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Material Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Material Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNeural Generalized Predictive Control: A Newton-Raphson ImplementationAn efficient implementation of Generalized Predictive Control using a multi-layer feedforward neural network as the plant's nonlinear model is presented. In using Newton-Raphson as the optimization algorithm, the number of iterations needed for convergence is significantly reduced from other techniques. The main cost of the Newton-Raphson algorithm is in the calculation of the Hessian, but even with this overhead the low iteration numbers make Newton-Raphson faster than other techniques and a viable algorithm for real-time control. This paper presents a detailed derivation of the Neural Generalized Predictive Control algorithm with Newton-Raphson as the minimization algorithm. Simulation results show convergence to a good solution within two iterations and timing data show that real-time control is possible. Comments about the algorithm's implementation are also included.Document ID19970015094Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSoloway, Donald*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Haley, Pamela J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1997Subject CategoryCyberneticsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-110244NAS 1.15:110244Accession Number97N18201Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 274-00-96-20Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970015094.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Boarding & Alighting – Issues List

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Boarding/Alighting (Spatial, applies to all modes)

1. Use of devices on-vehicle versus platform-based boarding devices

a. When is permanent versus temporary installation appropriate

b. Back-up methods for mechanical lifts

c. Impact on dwell time / service levels

2. Platforms

a. How best to address the use of bus and light rail boarding devices on 

shared platforms

b. Definition of level boarding (+/- 5/8”) for light/heavy & intercity long 

trains at level platforms

c. Evaluate different car types and implications for level boarding 

d. Commuter railroad shares ROW with freight 

3. Wheelchair lifts

a. Possibly increase lifting capacity– 800 lbs. minimum

b. How best to address extreme super-elevations

c. Lift platform barrier height

d. Self-operable lifts 

4. Ramps

a. Rethink the ramp slope and railing requirements

b. On-board storage of ramps

5. Bridgeplates 

a. Barriers and crowding conditions

i. Is space requirement similar to bus ramps/lifts?

b. Examine how bridgeplates interact with detectable warnings on the 

platform 

c. Consider alternatives for near level boarding , e.g., low floor vehicles 

and bridge plates

6. Light rail 

a. Examine implications of 60-70% low floor vs 100% low floor vehicles

7. Gaps 

a. Examine the potential for gap filler devices on vehicles or platforms

b. Examine European pop-out steps

8. Doors and doorways

a. Minimum width of doorway and each leaf

b. Handrails to assist with boarding and alighting 

c. How to provide accessible entry to each boarding and alighting area

i. Examine the potential for bi-level access from the station

9. Other
a. Full high-platform level boarding should be the highest priority and 

most preferred method of boarding on all rail modes, whether light rail, 

rapid rail, intercity rail, and/or commuter rail. When level boarding is 

not required or possible, boarding should be, as often as possible, by 

ramp or bridge-plate as the primary 100% reliable and quick means for 

boarding, and clearly making mechanical lifts a back-up alternative 

when possible. Where mechanical lifts are needed, they should be carborne, not station-based.

b. Full level boarding, all doors and all cars should be provided. When 

full level boarding is not required, add ramps, bridgeplates, etc.
From: corinne_smith@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:14:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Corinne Smith

Collierville, TN 38017