alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ADDENDUM B: Proposed C Y 2013 ESRD PPS and Composite Rate Wage Indices

for Rural Areas Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas

State

Code Nonurban Area ESRD PPS

Wage Index Composite Rate

Wage Index

1 Alabama 0.7113 0.7124

2 Alaska 1.2836 1.2856

3 Arizona 0.9203 0.9217

4 Arkansas 0.7357 0.7368

5 California 1.2585 1.2604

6 Colorado 1.0228 1.0244

7 Connecticut 1.1153 1.1170

8 Delaware 1.0192 1.0208

10 Florida 0.8080 0.8092

11 Georgia 0.7411 0.7422

12 Hawaii 1.0502 1.0518

13 Idaho 0.7600 0.7612

14 Illinois 0.8436 0.8449

15 Indiana 0.8422 0.8435

16 Iowa 0.8340 0.8353

17 Kansas 0.8015 0.8027

18 Kentucky 0.7908 0.7920

19 Louisiana 0.7735 0.7747

20 Maine 0.8362 0.8375

21 Maryland 0.8816 0.8830

22 Massachusetts 1.3570 1.3591

23 Michigan 0.8352 0.8365

24 Minnesota 0.9073 0.9087

25 Mississippi 0.7540 0.7552

26 Missouri 0.7638 0.7650

27 Montana 0.8619 0.8632

28 Nebraska 0.8721 0.8734

29 Nevada 0.9754 0.9769

30 New Hampshire 1.0395 1.0411

31 New Jersey 1

----- -----

32 New Mexico 0.8899 0.8913

33 New York 0.8217 0.8230CMS

- 1532

- P

2 State

Code Nonurban Area ESRD PPS

Wage Index Composite Rate

Wage Index

34 North Carolina 0.8236 0.8249

35 North Dakota 0.6906 0.6917

36 Ohio 0.8427 0.8440

37 Oklahoma 0.7800 0.7812

38 Oregon 0.9521 0.9536

39 Pennsylvania 0.8395 0.8408

40 Puerto Rico 0. 5000 0. 5008

41 Rhode Island 1

----- -----

42 South Carolina 0.8311 0.8324

43 South Dakota 0.8142 0.8155

44 Tennessee 0.7571 0.7583

45 Texas 0.7996 0.8008

46 Utah 0.8535 0.8548

47 Vermont 0.9746 0.9761

48 Virgin Islands 0.7201 0.7212

49 Virginia 0.7719 0.7731

50 Washington 1.0114 1.0130

51 West Virginia 0.7343 0.7354

52 Wisconsin 0.9162 0.9176

53 Wyoming 0.9259 0.9273

1 All counties within the State are classified as urban.
No. 9589.

#### The Oil Well Salvage Co. *v.*Troutman.

(Decided March 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Wood county.

*Mr. Edivard Beverstock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Phelps & David,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report of Verisity Ltd. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Moshe Gavrielov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.



| |  |                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |                                         |  | 
| |  | -------------------- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | Date: August 6, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Moshe Gavrielov                  |  | 
| |  |                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Moshe Gavrielov Chief Executive
Officer |  |
# Energy Source, Spring 2018 

/ Published June 15, 2018

The Spring 2018 issue of Energy Source magazine is online!

This issue highlights Aerospace Energy's support of the space launch industry, energy resiliency at Vandenberg Air Force Base, whole of government partnerships, International Fuel Agreements, DLA Energy job shadow program and more.

To join Energy Source magazine's mailing list and receive hard copies of future issues, please email energysourcemagazine@dla.mil with your name, organization and mailing address.
# Troop Support reps talk clothing, textiles at National Industries for the Blind conference

/ Published Sept. 12, 2018
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support representatives discussed key industry topics with military clothing and equipment manufacturers that employ blind and visually impaired Americans Sept. 6.

Attending the National Industries for the Blind’s annual Textile Apparel Group conference was a strategic engagement for DLA Troop Support, said Steven Merch, Clothing and Textiles director of supplier operations.

“We look for the target opportunities where we can go out, talk to industry [and] have face-to-face conversations,” Merch said. “It’s not only a chance to interact and network, it’s also an opportunity to pick up on more of what’s going on in the industry.”

NIB and its associated nonprofit agencies employ more than 5,600 blind or visually impaired people a year, according to its website. C&T purchases various uniform and equipment items from NIB agencies for DLA’s military customers including first aid cases, t-shirts, pillow cases and gloves.

During the conference, Merch shared projections of upcoming military uniform requirements, including how C&T is supporting the Air Force’s transition to operational camouflage pattern utility uniforms. 

DLA Troop Support Acquisition Executive William Kenny gave an overview about DLA Troop Support’s mission, and C&T acquisition and quality managers held a round table discussion to address industry queries. Attendees also met new C&T Director Air Force Col. Melvin Maxwell.

More DLA Troop Support employees were able to attend the two-day conference because it was held in Philadelphia, Merch said. 

The conference was held here for the first time in 12 years and was the most attended, with approximately 160 participants, said Jeff Papalia, NIB textiles program manager.

“We have an annual event to gather all of NIB textiles staff, not-for-profit agencies, our customers like DLA and [the military] services, and our partner suppliers,” Papalia said. “We purposely wanted to have it in the Philadelphia area because of the presence and proximity to DLA Troop Support.”

In addition to presentations from DLA and industry representatives, attendees toured local NIB facility Bestwork Industries for the Blind, Inc. in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Albert J. BEAUVAIS.

No. 60735.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

Simmons, Nelson & Dunn, Raymond L. Simmons, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On May 4, 1976 Albert J. Beauvais was indicted by the Grand Jury for the Parish of East Baton Rouge for the February 24, 1976 murder of Wesley Holton, Jr. in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1. Following a trial by jury defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and was sentenced to serve ten (10) years at hard labor with credit for time served. On appeal to this Court defendant relies on thirty-five assignments of error for reversal of his conviction and sentence.1

We have reviewed the record and find no merit to defendant’s assignments of error. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

*Decree*

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1

. Of these thirty-five assignments of error defendant has neither briefed nor argued five of them. These are deemed abandoned. *State v. Jones,*340 So.2d 563 (La. 1976). The remaining thirty assignments are presented in ten arguments.
Exhibit
      23.1













McGladrey
                & Pullen, LLPOne
                Valley Square, Ste. 250512
                Township Line RoadBlue
                Bell, PA 19422-2700O215-641-8600F215-641-8680












Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
        S-3
        (File No. 333-48986, effective October 31, 2000 as amended on November 18,
        2003
        and File No. 333-14491, effective October 18, 1996) and Form S-8 (File No.
        333-110575 and File No. 333-110568, effective November 18, 2003; File No.
        333-16151, File No. 333-16153 and File No. 333-16149 effective November 14,
        1996, File No. 333-134205 effective May 17, 2006) of Greater Community Bancorp
        of our reports dated March 12, 2008 relating to our audits of the consolidated
        financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which
        appear
        in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Greater Community Bancorp and Subsidiaries
        for the year ended December 31, 2007.
  
 /s/
                  McGladrey &
                  Pullen, LLP
 
 McGladrey
                  & Pullen, LLP
 Blue
                  Bell, Pennsylvania
 March
                  12, 2008
 
 
 
  
 
 McGladrey
                  & Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International -
 an
                  affiliation of separate and independent legal entities.






106
#### John Wesley JONES and Gertrude May Jones, his wife, title holders of Parcel Number 134, Appellants, v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Arrow Construction Corp., et al., Appellees.

No. 77-133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

*366Jerald C. Cantor of Meyer, Leben, Fixel & Cantor, Hollywood, for appellants.

H. Reynolds Sampson, Gen. Counsel, and Alan E. DeSerio, Atty., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee-State of Florida Dept, of Transp.

ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.

In this eminent domain action the defendant-landowner appeals from the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion for new trial. We conclude that the ground upon which the motion was granted is legally insufficient, and we reverse.

During the trial both sides presented expert witnesses, who testified as to the value of the property to be taken and the amount of severance damages. The first witness was the landowner’s expert. He began to testify, but before he reached the question of damages, the landowner’s attorney noticed that the State’s expert was sitting in the courtroom. At that point the landowner’s attorney “invoked the rule” and the judge ordered all witnesses to remain outside the courtroom and not discuss any testimony.

The new trial was granted on the following ground:

> The Court erred in granting the Motion by the Defendant to invoke the “Rule” to exclude witnesses from the Courtroom after the Jury was sworn, and subsequent to the Defendant’s expert witness beginning testimony, over the objection of the Plaintiff, to the prejudice of the State in the presentation of the case.

The motion for new trial was based on the theory that sending the State’s expert from the courtroom after the landowner’s expert had begun to testify gave the jury the impression that the State’s expert was doing something wrong, thus damaging his credibility.

The trial court’s initial decision to invoke the rule was not an abuse of judicial discretion. Although the preferred time to request the exclusion of witnesses is before any witness has testified, the benefit of sequestration (as an aid in detecting inconsistencies and fabrications) is too great to automatically deny exclusion simply because the request is made after commencement of testimony at the trial. *Derrickson v. State,*321 A.2d 497 (Del.1974); 6 Wigmore on Evidence § 1840 (3d Ed.). There is no legal basis to conclude that sequestration of the witnesses in this case had a prejudicial effect on the minds of the jurors. The possible psychological effect of a correct procedural ruling is not a sufficient ground for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded with directions that judgment be entered for the landowners pursuant to the jury’s verdict.

*367REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
No. 9559.

#### Burgess Steel & Iron Works *v.*The Champion Iron Co.

(Decided May 15, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hardin county.

*504*Mr. A. T. Holcomb*and *Messrs. Johnson <3 Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. George E. Crane,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION



I, Marcia Marcus, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Biodefense, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  April 26, 2005



/s/ Marcia Marcus

Secretary

Director
#### HARTSTONE CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO., Inc., a corporation, and George E. Berlin, Petitioners, v. Mary IVANCEVICH, Respondent.

No. 38327.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 29, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1969.

Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe and Stanton, St. Petersburg, and Charles F. Clark, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for petitioners.

E. B. Rood, John R. Parkhill, Tampa, Trinkle, Redman, Clawson & Peavyhouse, *98Brandon, and J. A. McClain, Jr., of McClain & Turbiville, Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari in this cause reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. After argument and upon further consideration, we have determined that proper appellate review, in either this Court or the appropriate District Court of Appeal, cannot be afforded the parties herein until all issues arising below have been ruled upon with finality by the Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.

The writ heretofore issued is discharged as improvidently issued, and the petition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
Exhibit 99.1

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of SLS International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John
Gott, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.

/s/ John Gott
---------------------------------------------------
John Gott
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
June 16, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Charles DAWSON and Craig Gordon Christiansen, Appellees.

Nos. 77-1777, 77-1778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Stuart M. Lerner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in *Gray v. State,*356 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

CROSS, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22431]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-919-000]


Toledo Edison Company; Notice of Filing

August 19, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 28, 1997, the Toledo Edison Company 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 285.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before August 29, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22431 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
; Generated by FastSum - an extremely fast checksum utility.
; Go to www.fastsum.com to get your own copy for free.
;
E4ED8869EE5AF6D3A395F9D2E79CD978 *scimono.pdf
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO FAA EXEMPTION NO. 11682 

1 September 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11682 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act 

and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0734-

0001. 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Stephen E Van Vickle was issued an Exemption numbered 11682 (hereinafter the Exemption) 

for the purpose of aerial data collection. Stephen E Van Vickle herby requests an amendment to 

the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully 

complies with the conditions of the Exemption. 

Stephen E Van Vickle wishes to operate a DJI Phantom 3 Advance, DJI Phantom 3 Professional 

and DJI Inspire 1 under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. All 

operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another type 

of unmanned aerial vehicle, Stephen E Van Vickle respectfully submits that good cause exists so 

that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested 

amendment. 

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an 

amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely yours, 

\s\ 

Stephen E Van Vickle
**Chicken and Eggs--Final Estimates (95908)**
CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Global Earth Energy,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Sydney A. Harland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Global Earth Energy, Inc.
 
 Date:
July 11, 2008
 
 /s/
Sydney A. Harland
 Sydney A.
Harland
 Chief
Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1 

STATEMENT OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350 

        I,Peter C. Chang, the chief executive officer of Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. (the“Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge, 

        (i)                 the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended          March 31, 2005 (the “Report”), fully complies with the          requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

        (ii)                 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Northstar Ventures, Inc. (the 'Company"), hereby
certify, that to the best of my knowledge, the
Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2001 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Date: October 1, 2002

/s/ Dempsey Mork
--------------------
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer