alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Secretary Chu From: Sent: 

### To: 

### Cc: Subject:

Attachments:

The Honorable Steven Chu Hamilton, Scott [SHamilton@ArkansasEDC.com] Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:08 PM Secretary Chu Lowery, JD; Tennille, Grant; marc.harrison@governor.arkansas.gov Endorsement ofthe Joint Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, Docket No. EERE-2010- BT-STD-0027 ,( 

## d 

# I

. -tt:,_;, DOE NEMA Electric Motor Support Letterto DOE.docx

### ~ 

# lht C)-tret

### me'~ I.S

## /e.-~'!/' 13m
Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington DC 20585

Dear Secretary Chu, RE: Docket No. EERE-201Q-BT-STD-Q027 The Arkansas Economic Development Commission- Energy Office is committed to and interested in promoting measures ofenergy efficiency as a means of positively addressing our nation's energy usage and its continued availability. With this, we understand and fully supportthe benefits ofdeveloping policies that encourage energy efficiency. More importantly, we appreciate strategies that strike a balance between the needs ofourenergy future and what is required to maintain a strong state and national economy. Recently, ajoint petition for Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027 lead by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and several other national energy efficiency advocacy organizations was presented to the DOE; we wish to lend oursupport to this petition's contents and goals as an alternative to the proposed immediate increase efficiency requirements. The strength ofthis petition lies in the early, continued collaboration ofthe many stakeholders who developed it, its straightforwardness and its feasibility. We applaud the combined efforts of manufacturers and energy-efficiency advocates to advance policy and regulation in a responsible and meaningful way. We encourage the DOE to adoptthe principles and content ofthe petition. Arkansas is the home ofa majorelectric motor manufacturerthat employs over2,000 Arkansans. Manyofthe company's competitors have gone overseas, while this company has chosen to remain in Fort Smith, AR. This group has been a partnerwith the DOE in the past and is a leading advocate ofefficiency in our state. We believe the current DOE proposal could potentially adversely impactthis economic and energy efficiency leader in ourstate. Again, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission- Energy Office endorses the petition and alternative strategy presented by the NEMA coalition. We encourage DOE to consider this request. Sincerely, Scott D. Hamilton Director Arkansas Energy Office



### This E-mail and any files and attachments transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use ofthe individual orentity to whomthey are addressed. Ifyou are notthe intendedrecipient, orthe employee oragent responsible for deliveringthe messageto the intendedrecipient, any use ofthis informationor dissemination or 1
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS



## * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CAROL PEMBER, *

* No. 15

- 1005

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. *

* Filed: August 22 , 2017

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Stipulation; trivalent influenza (“flu”)

* vaccine; brachial neurities.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard Gage , Richard Gage, PC, Cheyenne, WY , for Petitio ner;

Glenn Macleod , United S tates Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1



## On August 21, 2017

, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the

petition for compensation filed by Carol Pember on September 11, 2015

. In her

petition, petitioner alleged that the trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccine , which is

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C .F.R. § 100.3(a), and

which s he received on October 4, 2012 , caused her to suffer brachial neuritis

.

P etitioner further alleges that s he suffered the residual effects of this injury

for more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award

or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her

condition.

Res pondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer brachial

neuritis or any other injury.

1 

### T he E -Government Act , 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012 ) ( Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.

### 2 

## Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the de cision of the

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 110,000.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner

. T his amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in cas e 15

- 1005 V according to this decision

and the atta ched stipulation. 2



## IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 

### Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Fed eral

Claims judge.
#### Wm. Holdridge, App’lt, *v.*Eurydice L. Hicks *et al.,*Resp’ts.

*L. M. Norton,*for app’lt; *C. C. Davison,*for resp’ts.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

All concur, except Bradley and Haight, JJ., not sitting.

Affirming 39 Hun, 651, *mem.*
# C_2007155EN.01004301.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — López Teruel v OHIM

(Case F-97/06) (1)

1

(Officials - Invalidity - Rejection of a request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened)

(2007/C 155/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M.I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of OHIM's decision of 6 October 2005 refusing the applicant's request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened for the purpose of assessing her incapacity to perform the duties corresponding to her post and her right to an invalidity pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2005 refusing Mrs López Teruel's request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2005 refusing Mrs López Teruel's request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 24.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Kevin L. Tate, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UnitedNational Group, Ltd.;  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 and I are responsible forestablishing 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, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 11, 2004 /s/ Kevin L. TateName: Kevin L. TateTitle: Chief Financial Officer
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 Synergy  Financial  Group,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
we,  John S.  Fiore,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and A.  Richard
Abrahamian, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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)
               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.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                                        <C>
/s/John S. Fiore                                              /s/A. Richard Abrahamian
-------------------------------------                         -------------------------------------------------
John S. Fiore                                                 A. Richard Abrahamian
President and Chief Executive Officer                         Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date: August 9, 2006                                          Date: August 9, 2006

</TABLE>
Order entered July 7, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00943 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00944 - CR CHARLES EVERAGE DOYA L, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 199 - 80146 - 2014 , 199 - 80147 - 2014



### O RDER Appellant filed a single brief for these two appeals. The appeal in cause no. 05

- 14

- 00944

- CR is from a conviction of aggravated sexual assault. Appellant’s brief identifies the comp laining witness by her full name. Accordingly, we STRIKE the appellant’s brief filed on July 1, 2015. We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended brief that identifies the complaining witness in the aggravated sexual assault case by initials only. We DENY as moot appellant’s July 1, 2015 motion to extend time to file his brief. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
**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**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Boston Omaha Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Liangsheng Chen, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of SYSWIN 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The company’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 company 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 company, 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)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 3, 2011 |                                 |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------|
|              |                                 |
|              | /s/ Liangsheng Chen                  |
|              | Liangsheng Chen                      |
|              | Chief Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JUNE B. HENSON 

 

v. Record No. 2027-96-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

CULPEPER HEALTH CARE CENTER/ DECEMBER 17, 1996 

 MEDICAL FACILITIES OF AMERICA 

AND 

PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' 

 ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (June B. Henson, pro se, on briefs). 

 (John K. Coleman; Colleen M. Gentile; 

Slenker, Brandt, Jennings & Johnston, on 

brief), for appellees. 

 June B. Henson (claimant) contends that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding that her 

psychological condition did not qualify as a compensable 

occupational disease. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), employer raises 

the additional question of whether the commission erred in 

finding that claimant's depression/anxiety disorder constituted 

an occupational "disease" under the Workers' Compensation Act. 

Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 In holding claimant's depression/anxiety disorder did not 

qualify as a compensable occupational disease, the commission 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

found as follows: 

 The medical evidence and testimony indicate 

that her condition was precipitated by the 

hiring of a new administrator at the facility 

where she was employed. The claimant 

expressed concerns about salary cuts, an 

inability to schedule staff members for 

overtime hours, and a general feeling that 

the morale of her coworkers and the quality 

of patient care were steadily declining. 

 These findings are supported by credible evidence, including 

claimant's testimony and the medical records. Therefore, they 

are conclusive on appeal. The commission correctly relied upon 

our holding in Teasley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 14 Va. App. 45, 

415 S.E.2d 596 (1992), to find that claimant's psychological 

condition was not compensable. In Teasley, we recognized that 

"purely psychological disability resulting from disagreements 

over managerial decisions and conflicts with supervisory 

personnel that cause stressful consequences which result in 

purely psychological disability ordinarily are not compensable." 

Id. at 49, 415 S.E.2d at 598. 

 Because our holding on this issue disposes of this appeal, 

we will not address the question raised by employer in its brief. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Source Rock, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report   /s/ Mark MroczkowskiMark MroczkowskiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)    Date: March 16, 2012
Exhibit 32.1

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

     In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
-----------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
October 4, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.