alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
15
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders of
 Mediware
Information Systems, Inc.
 
 We have
reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) the unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial statements of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 2008 and for the three and nine month periods ended
March 31, 2008 and 2007 as indicated in our review report dated April 30,
2008.  Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on
those financial statements.
 
 We are
aware that our review report, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, is incorporated by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-07591, No. 333-83016, No.
333-119503, No. 333-123496 and No. 333-130576).
 
 We are
also aware that our review report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the “Act”), is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act and the
accountants’ Section 11 liability does not extend to such report.
 
 
 Eisner
LLP
 New York,
New York
 April 30,
2008
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
      undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
      certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
      "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




November
                    13, 2007/s/
                  Daniel C. DunnDaniel
                  C. Dunn
                Vice
                  President, Chief Financial Officer &
                  Secretary
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-01678-TSZ Document 24 Filed 04/28/06 Page 9 of 9
No. 61510.

#### A. E. Coppersmith and J. S. Walker et al. *v.*United States,

protests 303817-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C. D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: kmlosinger@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:23:26 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,

Karen Losinger

Marietta, GA 30066
From: lkc1@westchestergov.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:10:10 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,

Louis Codella

White Plains, NY 10606
From: megin41@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:37:09 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,

Margaret Yates

Wilton, ME 04294
ttxp_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 




  





5











  






 






 




  





6











  








 






 




  





7











  








 






 




  





8











  








 






 




  





9











  








 






 




  





10











  








 






 




  





11











  








 






 




  





12











  








 






 




  





13











  








 






 




  





14











  








 






 


15
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



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

                             Chief Financial Officer

The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Allied Healthcare Products,
Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal
quarter ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30th, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.



                                   s/ Daniel C. Dunn
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                      Daniel C. Dunn, Chief Financial Officer



                                      April 30, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maria Rodriguez, Also Known as Marilia Cruz, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 683]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered August 3, 1993, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Kings County Indictment No. 3089/93, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and purported appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the same court, also rendered August 3, 1993, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Kings County Indictment No. 564/93, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the purported appeal from the judgment rendered upon Indictment No. 564/93 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered upon Indictment No. 3089/93 is affirmed.

The defendant only filed a notice of appeal with regard to Indictment No. 3089/93, and her subsequent motion to amend the notice of appeal to reflect that she was also appealing from Indictment No. 564/93 was denied by decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 6, 1995.

*701At sentencing, the defendant moved, *inter alia,*to withdraw her plea of guilty under Indictment No. 3089/93 on the ground that she was mentally unfit at the time she entered the plea. The record of the plea proceeding, however, belies any claim of unfitness. Accordingly, it was a proper exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion to deny the defendant’s motion *(see, People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520, 525; *People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00290-CR

RAFAEL VILLARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1454393D)

September 26, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Elizabeth Kerr________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES e x re l. DANIEL THOM PSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. HONEYW ELL INTER

NATIONAL, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-55879 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02214-JAK-JC G
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, W . FLETC HER , a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s . W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l with pre j udic e . “ Unde r the Fa lse C la im [s] Ac t’ s sc i e nte r re q uire m e nt, innoc e nt m ista

ke s, m e re ne glige nt
m isre pre se ntations a

nd diffe re nc e s in inte rpre tations will not suffic e to c re ate 

# FIL ED M AY12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.lia

bility . Inste a d, R e lators m ust a lle ge tha

t [the de fe nda

nt] kne w tha

t its sta te m e nts we re fa lse , or tha

t it wa s de l ibe rate ly

indiffe re nt to or a c te d with re c kle ss disre ga rd of the truth of thesta

te m e nts.” Unite d State

s e x re l. Le e v . C

orinthian C

olls. , 655 F.3d 984, 996 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d).

“ B e c a use the y involvea lle gations of fra ud, qui tam a c tions under the [Fa lse C la im s Ac t] m ust m e e t not only the re quire m e nts of R ule 8, but a lso thepa

rtic ula rity
re quire m e nts of R

ule 9.” Id. at

992. Assum

ing argue ndo tha

t Hone ywe ll is not pe rm itte d to c ha

rge the Unite d State s a

lic e nse fe e for the softwa re at issue , the ope rat ive c om

p l a int doe s not spe c ific a lly a lle ge fa c ts le a ding to the pla usible infe re n c e tha

t Hone yw e ll kne w tha

t it wa s not e ntitle d to c ha

rge the fe e or tha

t it
wa s de libe rate l y indiffe re nt to or a c te d with re c kle ss disre g ard of the truth. The
c om pla i nt the re fore doe s not sta te a c la im unde r the Fa l se C la i m s Ac t. The distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in dism issing the c a se with pre

judic e be c a

u se Thom pson fa ile d to c ure this ple a ding de fe c t a fte r the c ourt ga ve him m ultiple opportunitie s to do so. AFFIRM E D.
## Dissolved Oxygen Percent (%) Saturation Sheet

Temp D.O. (mg/L)

(C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 12131415*

0 7% 14% 21% 27% 34% 41% 48% 55% 62% 68% 75% 82% 89% 96% 103% 1 7% 14% 21% 28% 35% 42% 49% 56% 63% 70% 78% 85% 92% 99% 106% 2 7% 14% 22% 29% 36% 43% 51% 58% 65% 72% 80% 87% 94% 101% 109% 3 7% 15% 22% 30% 37% 45% 52% 60% 67% 74% 82% 89% 97% 104% 112% 4 8% 15% 23% 31% 38% 46% 53% 61% 69% 76% 84% 92% 99% 107% 115% 5 8% 16% 24% 31% 39% 47% 55% 63% 71% 78% 86% 94% 102% 110% 118% 6 8% 16% 24% 32% 40% 48% 56% 64% 72% 80% 88% 97% 105% 113% 121% 7 8% 17% 25% 33% 41% 50% 58% 66% 74% 83% 91% 99% 107% 116% 124% 8 8% 17% 25% 34% 42% 51% 59% 68% 76% 85% 93% 101% 110% 118% 127% 9 9% 17% 26% 35% 43% 52% 61% 69% 78% 87% 95% 104% 113% 121% 130% 10 9% 18% 27% 35% 44% 53% 62% 71% 80% 89% 98% 106% 115% 124% 133% 11 9% 18% 27% 36% 45% 54% 64% 73% 82% 91% 100% 109% 118% 127% 136% 12 9% 19% 28% 37% 46% 56% 65% 74% 84% 93% 102% 112% 121% 130% 139% 13 10% 19% 29% 38% 48% 57% 67% 76% 86% 95% 105% 114% 124% 133% 143% 14 10% 19% 29% 39% 49% 58% 68% 78% 87% 97% 107% 117% 126% 136% 146% 15 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 79% 89% 99% 109% 119% 129% 139% 149% 16 10% 20% 30% 41% 51% 61% 71% 81% 91% 102% 112% 122% 132% 142% 152% 17 10% 21% 31% 41% 52% 62% 73% 83% 93% 104% 114% 124% 135% 145% 155% 18 11% 21% 32% 42% 53% 63% 74% 85% 95% 106% 116% 127% 138% 148% 159% 19 11% 22% 32% 43% 54% 65% 76% 86% 97% 108% 119% 130% 140% 151% 162% 20 11% 22% 33% 44% 55% 66% 77% 88% 99% 110% 121% 132% 143% 154% 165% 21 11% 22% 34% 45% 56% 67% 79% 90% 101% 112% 124% 135% 146% 157% 169% 22 11% 23% 34% 46% 57% 69% 80% 92% 103% 115% 126% 138% 149% 161% 172% 23 12% 23% 35% 47% 58% 70% 82% 93% 105% 117% 129% 140% 152% 164% 175% 24 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 71% 83% 95% 107% 119% 131% 143% 155% 167% 179% 25 12% 24% 36% 49% 61% 73% 85% 97% 109% 121% 133% 146% 158% 170% 182% 26 12% 25% 37% 49% 62% 74% 87% 99% 111% 124% 136% 148% 161% 173% 185% 27 13% 25% 38% 50% 63% 75% 88% 101% 113% 126% 138% 151% 164% 176% 189% 28 13% 26% 38% 51% 64% 77% 90% 102% 115% 128% 141% 154% 166% 179% 192% 29 13% 26% 39% 52% 65% 78% 91% 104% 117% 130% 143% 156% 169% 183% 196% 30 13% 27% 40% 53% 66% 80% 93% 106% 119% 133% 146% 159% 172% 186% 199% 31 13% 27% 40% 54% 67% 81% 94% 108% 121% 135% 148% 162% 175% 189% 202% 32 14% 27% 41% 55% 69% 82% 96% 110% 124% 137% 151% 165% 179% 192% 206% 33 14% 28% 42% 56% 70% 84% 98% 112% 126% 140% 154% 168% 182% 196% 209% 34 14% 28% 43% 57% 71% 85% 99% 113% 128% 142% 156% 170% 184% 199% 213% 35 14% 29% 43% 58% 72% 87% 101% 115% 130% 144% 159% 173% 188% 202% 216% 36 15% 29% 44% 59% 73% 88% 103% 117% 132% 147% 161% 176% 191% 205% 220% 37 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 89% 104% 119% 134% 149% 164% 179% 194% 209% 224% 38 15% 30% 45% 61% 76% 91% 106% 121% 136% 151% 166% 182% 197% 212% 227% 39 15% 31% 46% 61% 77% 92% 108% 123% 138% 154% 169% 184% 200% 215% 230%

* If D.O. is greater than 15 mg/L then use the formula
on pg. 175 in your Stream Keepers Field Guide:

Actual Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Max Oxygen Concentration at Water Temp
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VICKIE L. ECKERLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5682 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AFFIRMING

COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Magistrate Judge J. Kelly Arnold recommends that the Court should conclude that Ms.

Eckerle was properly denied social security benefits because application of the proper legal standard

and substantial evidence support the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) finding Plaintiff is not

disabled. Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation contending (1) the ALJ failed to

properly assess the medical opinion evidence, (2) the ALJ failed to properly consider claimant’s

testimony, (3) the ALJ failed to properly consider testimony of lay witnesses, and (4) the ALJ failed

to properly assess the vocational evidence.9* After carefully considering Plaintiff’s arguments

against the analysis and authorities presented by the Magistrate Judge, the Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge did not err in the assessment of medical evidence. Neither is the Court convinced

Case 3:05-cv-05682-FDB Document 24 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

that the ALJ failed to properly assess claimant’s subjective symptom testimony or that of lay

witnesses. It is clear from the record that the ALJ considered both the testimony of Ms Eckerle and

the lay witnesses when considering the ultimate question of disability and weighed this evidence in

conjunction with review of the medical evidence. Finally, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s contentions

that the ALJ failed to properly assess the vocational evidence. The ALJ’s findings are supported by

substantial evidence. 

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint,, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelly Arnold, Objections thereto, and the remaining record, does hereby find and

ORDER: 

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The administrative decision is AFFIRMED; and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s

counsel and to the Hon. J. Kelly Arnold.. 

DATED this 18th day of September, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05682-FDB Document 24 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 477 

Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of 

homeownership in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2007 

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, 

Mr. BACHUS, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, Mr. CLAY, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. 

AL GREEN of Texas, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mrs. MALONEY of 

New York, Mr. WATT, and Mr. ROSKAM) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the 

importance of homeownership in the United States. 

Whereas the President of the United States has issued a 

proclamation designating the month of June 2007 as National Homeownership Month; 

Whereas the national homeownership rate in the United 

States has reached a record high of almost 70 percent 

and more than half of all minority families are homeowners; 

Whereas the people of the United States are one of the besthoused populations in the world; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 477 IH 

Whereas owning a home is a fundamental part of the American dream and is the largest personal investment many 

families will ever make; 

Whereas homeownership provides economic security for homeowners by aiding them in building wealth over time and 

strengthens communities through a greater stake among 

homeowners in local schools, civic organizations, and 

churches; 

Whereas creating affordable homeownership opportunities requires the commitment and cooperation of the private, 

public, and nonprofit sectors, including the Federal Government and State and local governments; and 

Whereas the current laws of the United States, such as the 

American Dream Downpayment Act, encourage homeownership and should continue to do so in the future: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) fully supports the goals and ideals of Na3 tional Homeownership Month; and 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of homeownership 

5 in building strong communities and families. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS