alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-----Original Message----- 

### From: Beth Havlik [mailto:bhavlik@barr.com] 

### Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:12AM 

### To: Anderson, Bradley E.; kmlaird@cleveland-cliffs.com; sqischia@cleveland-cliffs.com Cc: George Pruchnofski; Teresa 

### L. Kinder; Tim Russell; dskolasinski@cleveland-cliffs.com; sgroqers@cci-htc.com; dwagner@ccinorthshore.com; ajhayden@cci-htc.com 

### Subject: Data requested by Friday 7-14 from meeting on NOx CEMs and process optimization
As you are aware, the MPCA has discussed "Process Optimizationwith NOx CEMS" as a possible control technologyfor BART. During the June 28 meeting at United Taconite, we discussed afew basicconcernswith this possible solution:
• Since fuel costs are one ofthe highest costs forthe facilities, optimizing the process to minimize fuel combustion while maintaining product quality has already been analyzed and implemented.
• The operating parameters which generally indicatethe rate ofNOx generation are relatively constant during OReration ofthe furnace. These parameters are dependent on pellettype (standard versus flux) and include: furnace temperatures, pellet feed/production, fuel burn rate, MMBtu/ton, and fan amps.
• The stack tests for each furnace show similaroperating data and similaremission rates. In the BART report, we would like to present the discussion above and then state that there is no indication that further emission reductions would be possible through the use ofthe NOx CEMS. Therefore, as we discussed during the June 28 meeting, we would like you to provide the following information for each ofyour furnaces: 1. Stack test summaries to show emission rates and operating data during the test. Includethe following:
• date • NOx emissions (ppm, lbs/hr, and lbs/ton ofpellets orgreen balls) • Other relevant stacktest data (02, stackflow, moisture

...) • Operating data (pellet type, furnace temperature(s), pellet feed/production, fuel burn rate, MMBtu/ton, and fan amps 2. Operating data daily summaries to demonstrate that the operation ofthe furnace is steady and consistentwith the stack tests. The operating data should be daily averages forfull operating days (don't include days with down time). Ifpossible, wewould like 3years ofdaily operating data to demonstratethe consistency ofthe operation. The operating data should include the following 

## • Date, 

# • Pellettype, 

# • Furnace temperature(s), 

## • Pelletfeed/production, 

# • Fuel burn rate, 

# • MMBtu/ton, and 

# • Fan amps In orderto proceed with the BART analysis and report, we would like to receive this by Friday July 14. Please feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions orconcerns.

Erik Boleman Barr Engineering Toll Free: (800) 786-5830x8209 Office: (218) 529-8209 Mobile: (218) 393-9116
- Front Matter
Contact Information
Title Page
Citation Page
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures

- 1 Introduction
- 2 Definition of a Small Area
- 3 Direct Estimation
- 4 Synthetic Estimation
- 5 Regression Method
- 6 Conclusions
- References
- Appendix:  Summary of DHS-I and DHSII Surveys 1985-1993
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CertificationPursuant 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)

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), each of the
undersigned officers of Nortel Networks Limited, a Canadian corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

This Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003 (Amendment No. 1) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in Amendment No. 1 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 28, 2003
    
    /s/ FRANK A. DUNNFrank A. Dunn
President and Chief Executive OfficerDated: November 28, 2003
    
    /s/ DOUGLAS C. BEATTYDouglas C. Beatty
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32

THE HACKETT GROUP, INC.

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 The Hackett Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Ted A. Fernandez, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert A. Ramirez, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ted A. FernandezTed A. FernandezChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 11, 2008/s/ Robert A. RamirezRobert A. RamirezExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 11, 2008


A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Hackett Group,
Inc. and will be retained by The Hackett Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Warren ELSER, Appellant.

No. 72881.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

July 31, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30, 1998.

Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1998.

S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gregory L. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and JAMES R. DOWD and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Warren Elser appeals from the judgment entered pursuant to his jury conviction for two counts of Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer in the Second Degree, Section 562.082, RSMo.19941, and for one count of Resisting Arrest, Section 575.150. The trial court sentenced him to two concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment for each, of the two counts of Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer in the Second Degree, Section 562.082, and three months imprisonment for the one count of Resisting Arrest, Section 575.150.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential or jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All further statutory citations are to RSMo 1994.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           8,377
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,377
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          215,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           285
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,146,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,377
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,040,097)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,040,097)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,040,097)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>
Case No. 14,686.

#### UNITED STATES v. BURFORD.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 102.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1814.

Witness — Prosecution fob Perjury — Interest.

A defendant in equity is a competent witness upon an indictment against the plaintiff in equity, for perjury in his affidavit made to procure an injunction.

Indictment for perjury, in [John A. Bur-ford’s] the defendant’s affidavit to a bill in equity for an injunction against Peter Miller. The. attorney for the United States, offered to examine the defendant in equity, Peter Miller, as a witness, to prove the perjury.

Mr. Law and F. S. Key, for defendant,

objected that, the question of injunction being still pending, the defendant in equity was not a competent witness to prove the perjury, and cited Rex v. Dalby, Peake, 12; and Rex v. Menetone, 4 East, 576, note.

But

THE COURT

(nem. con.) overruled the objection, because the conviction of Burford could not affect the cause in chancery; the oath of the complainant not being in evidence. either on a motion to dissolve the injunction after answer, or on the final hearing, but is only required to satisfy the chancellor that- there is prima facie ground to order the injunction.
33911.

#### In the Interest of D. B. A.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from a finding of delinquency for violation of Code Ann. § 68A-808, "Racing on highways and streets.” We affirm.

Section (a) in its entirety and the first definition of a drag race in section (b) of Code Ann. § 68A-808 are not unconstitutionally vague and indefinite as argued by appellant. Section (a) provides: "No person shall drive any *41vehicle on a highway in this State in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, exhibition of speed or acceleration, or for the purpose of making a speed record, and no person shall in any manner participate in any such race, competition of speed, contest of speed, or test or exhibition of speed.”

Submitted August 4, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978.

*Wallace C. Clayton,*for appellant.

*James F. Morris, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Section (b) provides in part, "Drag race is defined as the operation of two or more vehicles from a point side by side at accelerated speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other,...” In our opinion the statute sets out with reasonable definiteness what acts are prohibited.

We find that the petition contained sufficient factual details to inform appellant of the nature of the offense and provided data adequate to enable him to prepare his defense. The petition alleges, "Said child did violate Georgia Code Annotated Section 68A-808, Racing, in that on the 27th day of December 1976, he did enter his vehicle, a Chevrolet Camaro, in a contest of speed with another vehicle, a White Chevrolet, by accelerating from a standing start in a competitive attempt to outdistance another vehicle at Bankhead Highway and Floyd Road, Mableton, Cobb County, Georgia.” We find also that the evidence supports the judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 74-5952.

#### Moore et ux. *v.*Csakai et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|  |
|--|
|  |

****  • See all of CNET's broadband coverage  • Contact CNET Support  • Start over again at CNET.com****
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Janet Greeson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Janet Greeson
Janet Greeson
Chief Executive Officer
April 15, 2003
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1639 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to authorize the 

American Legion under its Federal charter to provide 

guidance and leadership to the individual departments 

and posts of the American Legion, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1639 ES

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL POWER OF AMERICAN LEGION 

2 UNDER FEDERAL CHARTER. 

3 Section 21704 of title 36, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) through (8) 

6 as paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and 

7 (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol8 lowing new paragraph (5): 

9 ‘‘(5) provide guidance and leadership to organi10 zations and local chapters established under para11 graph (4), but may not control or otherwise influ12 ence the specific activities and conduct of such orga13 nizations and local chapters;’’. 

Passed the Senate October 6, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1639 

AN ACT 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to authorLegion, and for other purposes. dividual departments and posts of the American ter to provide guidance and leadership to the in- ize the American Legion under its Federal char-
EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                     CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


    Digital Fusion, Inc.
    Tampa, Florida


    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
    Registration Statements of Digital Fusion, Inc. on Form S-3 (SEC
    file No. 333-100052) dated January 27, 2004, (except for the last
    paragraph of Note 7(c), as to which the date is April 7, 2004)
    relating to the consolidated financial statements of Digital
    Fusion, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form
    10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003.

    Pender Newkirk & Company
    Tampa, Florida
    April 12, 2004
No. 46419.

#### Protests 846134-G, etc., of American Fig & Date Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.-

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted),Edward A. Keible, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Endwave Corporation (the “Company”), and JulianneM. Biagini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of theirknowledge:
     **1. **The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the ***“Quarterly Report”***) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
     **2. **The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
     **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 13th day ofMay, 2005.   /s/ EdwardA. Keible, Jr. /s/ JulianneM. Biagini   Edward A. Keible, Jr. Julianne M. BiaginiChief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
No. 44340.

#### Protests 28265-K, etc., of J. Sammes (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 3)4 cents per pound under paragraph 703, Tariff Act of 1930, on the basis of the net weight of )he contents of the cans less 10 percent allowance for the gelatinous material.
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 The Quantum Group, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald B. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Signed on September 19, 2007



/s/Donald B. Cohen

Donald B. Cohen

Chief Financial Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lena G, Smith, Deceased.

Surrogate's Court, Nassau County,

April 20, 1966.

*Fried & Regenstreif*for petitioners. *Samuel S. Friedman*for respondent. *John L. Molloy*for Public Administrator of Nassau County.

John D. Bennett, S.

An alleged creditor has petitioned for the appointment of the Public Administrator as administrator of the decedent’s estate.

In her petition she claims she does not possess information regarding the extent of the decedent’s estate but contends that-said decedent conveyed real property prior to her death in an alleged attempt to defraud creditors. Said petitioner commenced an action against the estate of the decedent and the objeetants herein, in the Supreme Court, to set said conveyance aside, and that action is pending. In their answer to the Supreme Court action the objeetants set forth as a defense to said action that the petitioner had not applied for the appointment of a representative for the decedent’s estate. The objectants now contend that the petition herein is premature due to the fact that the decedent died without any estate whatsoever and the relief sought by the petitioner herein should be granted only if she is successful in her Supreme Court action.

Basically the court will not do a futile act. If there is no property in existence to be administered, then there is no need to grant letters of administration (2 Warren’s Heaton, § 150, par. 1, subd. [h]). However, where a debt is claimed against a decedent by an alleged creditor, a representative must be named in order that a cause of action may be presented against the decedent’s estate *(Matter of Losee,*119 App. Div. 107).

The objeetants, citing *Matter of Tebin*(7 A D 2d 720), further contend that this court should not grant the petition to issue letters because another action is pending in the Supreme Court *898and all proceedings herein should be stayed until a determination is made in that litigation. However, the estate is a named defendant in the said Supreme Court action and an administrator should be appointed to represent the estate in that proceeding. This court would stay any proceedings in this court egarding the matter being litigated in the Supreme Court until a determination is made therein *(Matter of Tebin, supra)*but must first appoint an administrator .as set forth heretofore (cf. *Matter of Wolff,*9 A D 2d 92.9). Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to strike the objections interposed by the objectants to the issuance of limited letters of administration, restricted to the defense of the pending Supreme Court action pursuant to section 89 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, insofar as the same aver that there is no necessity for the issuance of said letters and because another action is pending, is granted. In default of the qualification of one or more of the objectants for letters as set forth herein within 15 days from the service of a copy of the decree herein, limited letters will issue to the Public Administrator.
No. 74-5907.

#### Glucksman *v.*New York.

Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
No. 46990.

#### Protests 820207-G, etc., of Agress Nut & Seed Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-72271) and Form S-3 (No. 333-78915), Post-Effective Amendment
No. 3 on Form S-3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-56603), and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 on Form S-3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1
(No. 333-65563) of United Road Services, Inc. of our report dated March 29,
2000, except as to Note 19(b), which is as of April 12, 2000 and Note 19(c),
which is as of April 14, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
United Road Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
(deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, and for
the period from July 25, 1997 (inception) through December 31, 1997, and the
financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 14(a)(2), which report
appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of United Road
Services, Inc.


                                        /s/  KPMG LLP

Albany, New York
April 14, 2000
No. 40437.

#### Protests 430036-G, etc., of Bergdorf & Goodman Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items are in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
No. 96-5951.

#### Brawner *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.