alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Matthew
  J. Pfeffer, certify that:1.
I have
  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VaxGen, Inc.2.
Based on my
  knowledge, this 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 report;3.
Based on my
  knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
  in this 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 report;4.
The
  registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
  Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed
  such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
  and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;(b)
  [Reserved];(c)
  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
  period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
  financial reporting that occurred during registrants most recent fiscal
  quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report)
  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
  the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The
  registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
  recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
  registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors
  (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All
  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
  of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
  adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
  report financial information; and(b) Any
  fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
  who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
  financial reporting. February 6, 2007 /s/ Matthew J. PfefferChief Financial Officer - 1 -
From: Charlotte Wales

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Coverage of preventative care under new health care law

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:06:47 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 STRONGLY urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you - Charlotte Wales
Before the First Division,

November 16, 1964

No. 68884.

#### Ungar Electric Tools, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/10502(B), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
June 6 , 2013

Memo to : EPA Docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 0268)

Subject : Summary of April 2013 presentations given at the National Radiological Emergency Preparedness Conference regarding updates to the Protective Action Guides (PAGs) Manual and X

- Ray Guidance (FGR Report 14)

On April 9, 2013, EPA staff gave an Agency update to the National Radiological Emergency Preparedness (NREP) Conference at the request of conference organizers. The update focused on radiation protection activities over the p ast year, including publication of two proposals for public comment: “PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents” and “Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional

X

- Ray Procedures: Federal Guid ance Report No. 14.” EPA staff provided a brief overview of the differences between the current (1992) and newly proposed PAG Manuals and answered questions. Staff from federal, state and local radiation programs, industry and academia participated.
From: gailbecher@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:23:54 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,

gail becher

Grand Island, NY 14072
Version 2.1

USGS CMSC FACS OVERVIEW LOG

ACTIVITY ID: 10CCT02

TOPIC INFORMATION

USGS ACTIVITY ID 10CCT02

OTHER ID (IF ANY)

ORGANIZATION(S)/PROGRAM U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg 

Coastal and Marine Science Center

PROJECT/THEME Mississippi Coastal Improvement Project

(MsCIP) / Coastal Change and Transport

AREA OF OPERATION

Horn Island, MS, to Dauphin Island, AL, and 

adjacent passes (Northern Gulf of Mexico)

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR James G. Flocks

INFORMATION SPECIALIST(S)

Dana S. Wiese and Arnell S. Forde

ACTIVITY TYPE Seafloor Mapping / Shallow Sub-bottom 

Profile

SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE/GOALS

To create a complete modern topobathymetric 

map of the Mississippi barrier islands from 

Cat Island, MS, to Dauphin Island, AL. Data 

to provide information for the following: 

sediment budget; assessment of immediate 

sand resources in the region, modern geologic 

framework, historical island change 

measurements, and base-level assessment of 

the seafloor since the 2005 hurricane season.

PLATFORM R/V Tommy Munro

STARTING DATE March 19, 2010

STARTING PORT Biloxi, Mississippi

ENDING DATE March 29, 2010

ENDING PORT Biloxi, Mississippi

EQUIPMENT USED

SwathPlus -H 468-kHz Interferometric 

System, F190 DGPS/IMU, Edgetech SB512i 

Chirp Sub-bottom Profiler, L3900 Klein Side 

Scan Towfish, HYPACK for ship navigation, 

2 Valeport Mini SVP probes, 1 Valeport SV 

Profiler

INFORMATION TO BE DERIVED

Submetrix swath bathymetry data, shallow 

sub-bottom image profiles, and side scan 

sonar mosaics

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY AND DATA 

GATHERED

Chirp lines (196), Swath lines (196), and Side 

Scan lines (102) 

NOTES Boat Staff - James G. Flocks, Nancy T. 

DeWitt, Phillip R. Thompson, Arnell S. 
Version 2.1

Forde, Dana S. Wiese, William R. Pfeiffer, 

and Kyle Kelso.

Shop Staff (Pre-Cruise) - Dave Wegener 

contributed 1.5 weeks to design and 

fabrication; Richard Young was boat captain 

during 2 days of side scan sonar equipment 

testing. Digital 10CCT02 FACS logs were 

generated by N. DeWitt in September of 2010 

using the handwritten logbook and personal 

accounts of the crew members.
#### Antonio NAANOS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-56410.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*593Thomas G. Roche, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shea Lita Bond, Esq., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio Naanos appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner”) denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. *Tackett v. Apfel,*180 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1999). We must uphold the denial of benefits if the Commissioner’s denial is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. *Id.*We affirm.

For the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to reject the claimant’s complaints, he must provide specific, cogent reasons for his disbelief. *Reddick v. Chater,*157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir.1998). Unless there is evidence of malingering, “the Commissioner’s reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony must be clear and convincing. General findings are insufficient; rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We agree with the district court that the ALJ met those standards. The ALJ’s decision establishes that the ALJ accepted Naanos’ pain testimony regarding his back condition. Furthermore, the ALJ properly rejected Naanos’ pain testimony regarding his migraines, finding that the migraines responded to treatment. Because the ALJ provided a clear and convincing reason for rejecting Naanos’ migraine pain testimony, which is supported by substantial evidence, he did not err. *See Chavez v. Dept. of Health & Human Servs.,*103 F.3d 849, 853 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 67054.

protest 60/18305 (New York).

#### International Packers, Limited *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharacterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Úřední věstník C 53/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 53 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 5813. února 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 53

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 5813. února 2015

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznámení |
| | SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ |
| | Evropský parlament |
| 2015/C 053/01 | Rozhodnutí | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropský parlament

2015/C 053/01

Rozhodnutí

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

V Oznámení

SPRÁVNÍ ŘÍZENÍ

Evropský parlament

| 13.2.2015 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 53/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2015

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 53/1

---

ROZHODNUTÍ

(2015/C 53/01)

GENERÁLNÍ TAJEMNÍK EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU,

s ohledem na nařízení Rady (EHS, Euratom, ESUO) č. 259/68 (1) ve znění nařízení Rady (ES, Euratom) č. 723/2004 (2) a naposledy pozměněné nařízením Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU, Euratom) č. 1023/2013 ze dne 22. října 2013, kterým se mění služební řád úředníků Evropské unie a pracovní řád ostatních zaměstnanců Evropské unie (3), a zejména na článek 30 tohoto služebního řádu,

s ohledem na rozhodnutí předsednictva Evropského parlamentu ze dne 13. ledna 2014 o přenosu pravomocí orgánu oprávněného ke jmenování (AIPN) a orgánu oprávněného k uzavírání pracovních smluv (AHCC),

s ohledem na to, že dne 31. prosince 2014 skončila platnost následujících rezervních seznamů Evropského parlamentu:

AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/4/11, AST/5/11, PE/96/S, PE/119/S, PE/110/S,

s ohledem na stanovisko smíšeného výboru přijaté na jeho zasedání dne 22. října 2014,

ROZHODL:

Článek 1

Doba platnosti rezervních seznamů:

| | AD/4/08, PE/106/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/4/11, AST/5/11, PE/96/S, PE/110/S |
| --- | --- |

AD/4/08, PE/106/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/4/11, AST/5/11, PE/96/S, PE/110/S

se prodlužuje do 31. prosince 2015.

Článek 2

Doba platnosti rezervních seznamů:

| | AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/107/S, PE/119/S |
| --- | --- |

AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/107/S, PE/119/S

se neprodlužuje.

V Lucemburku dne 12. prosince 2014.

Klaus WELLE

generální tajemník

---

(1)  Úř. věst. L 56, 4.3.1968, s. 1.

1

(2)  Úř. věst. L 124, 27.4.2004, s. 1.

2

(3)  Úř. věst. L 287, 29.10.2013, s. 15.

3

---
From: brodockg@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Gary Brodock

Wynantskill, NY 12198
No. 60147.

protests 656460-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### So. Calif. Waste Material Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
From: gbcpastor@eufaula.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:24:52 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,

Bryce D. Mitchell

Georgetown, GA 39854
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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

I, John L. Coker, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer of BioReliance Corporation (the Corporation), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the period
March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (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
Corporation.

/s/ John L. Coker
John L. Coker
Vice President, Finance and Administration
and Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003
#### Henry Morrison, Plaintiff, v. Richard R. Watson, Defendant.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
From: chrisbutleradj@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:18 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,

chris butler

Carrollton, TX 75006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1691

CHAD E. KAKERT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-03-297-7)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chad E. Kakert, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chad E. Kakert appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil action against Darden Restaurants for failure to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Kakert v. Darden

Restaurants, Inc., No. CA-03-297-7 (W.D. Va. May 16, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED