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

RÁPIDOS

Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU.

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

Para obtener información más completa:

Administración de 

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional

Protéjase

La Gripe Aviar

Empleados de Granjas Avícolas

La gripe aviar, es una enfermedad viral y puede ser muy contagiosa y hasta causar la muerte en aves (ej., pollos). De gran preocupación son los virus altamente patogénicos de gripe aviar,

(HPAI) H5N1, los cuales han causado la muerte a millones de

aves y han infectado a humanos en otros países. Si estos virus

se encontraran en los Estados Unidos, tome las precauciones

apropiadas si usted colabora en la eliminación de aves de corral.

Las Señales de la Enfermedad de Gripe Aviar en Aves

Muerte repentina, falta de energía, apetito y coordinación,

decoloración de color morado y/o inflamación de varias partes

del cuerpo, diarrea, descarga nasal, tos, estornudo, y producción reducida/o huevos anormales

Los Síntomas de la Gripe Aviar en Humanos

Varían desde fiebre, tos, dolor de garganta y dolores musculares; a diarrea, infecciones oculares, neumonía, y enfermedades respiratorias serias. Los síntomas de la gripe aviar

pueden variar según el virus que haya causado la infección,

pero son con frecuencia similares a los que están asociados

con la gripe de temporada en humanos.

Cuando se Trabaja en Actividades de Erradicación

• Lávese las manos completamente y con frecuencia, preferiblemente con agua y jabón por 15-20 segundos (o cuando no

tenga jabón a su disposición, use un liquido para lavar manos

a base de alcohol) especialmente si esta tratando con aves de

corral o productos de aves de corral.

• Use guantes ligeros desechables o guantes gruesos para trabajos pesados que luego pueda desinfectar. Evite tocarse la

cara con los guantes puestos.

• Use ropa exterior desechable, guardapolvos, o batas quirúrgicas de manga larga con puño que tengan sobre ellas un

delantal sellado.

• Use cubiertas desechables para zapatos o botas que puedan

ser limpiadas y desinfectadas. 

• Use gafas protectoras y una cubierta desechable para la

cabeza o el pelo. 

• Use por lo menos el nivel mínimo de protección respiratoria,

respirador N95 o mayor.

• Evite comer, beber, fumar y usar el baño mientras tenga

puesto el equipo de protección personal.

Guía adicional

• Póngase la vacuna contra la gripe de temporada.

• Pídale a su doctor que le prescriba un suministro adecuado

de antivirales durante actividades de eliminación de aves de

corral y 5 días después de que termine.

• Si a usted se le desarrollan síntomas similares a los de la

gripe, permanezca en su casa, excepto para recibir atención

medica.
**Exhibit 32**

**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-Q of GenTek Inc. (the “Company”) for thethree months ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), William E. Redmond, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Andrew P. Hines, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of his knowledge:

                (1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

                (2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

|   |                                                                                                                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/    | William E. Redmond, Jr.                                                                      |
|   | William E. Redmond, Jr.                                                                                               |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                               |
|   | November 9, 2005                                                                                                      |
|   |                                                                                                                  |
|   |                                                                                                                  |
| /s/    | Andrew P. Hines                  |
|   | Andrew P. Hines                                                                                                       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                               |
|   | November 9, 2005                                                                                                      |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GenTek Inc.and will be retained by GenTek Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT97-69-000]

Boundary Gas, Inc.; Notice of Refund Report

October 1, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 26, 1997, Boundary Gas, Inc. 
(Boundary) tendered for filing a refund report reflecting the 
flowthrough of the Gas Research Institute (GRI) refund received by 
Boundary on May 30, 1997.
    Boundary states that it has credited such refund, together with 
interest accrued to date, proportionally to its firm customers of non-
discounted service based on the GRI surcharges those customers paid 
during the calendar year 1996. Boundary states that each customer's 
credit will be reflected on its invoice for September 1997 services to 
be issued on or about October 15, 1997.
    Boundary states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each 
of Boundary's affected customers and the state commissions of New York, 
Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest this filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions and protests must be filed on or 
before October 8, 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 available for public inspection in 
the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26477 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

 

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)Certifications

 

I, Robert M. Alderman, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Global Horizons I L.P.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision,  to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 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 registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessin the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) An fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:March 31, 2006

 
| By                                             | /s/ ROBERT M. ALDERMAN |   |
|------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Robert M. Alderman                             |
| Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager |
| **(Principal  Executive Officer)**             |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40726 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELEE CAMPOS CAMARGO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(7:99-CR-470-ALL) Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elee Campos Camargo appeals from his jury-trial conviction for

one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 89.4 kilograms of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Camargo claims the court erred, pursuant to U nited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This claim is not moot because he is serving a term of supervised release. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 928 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[S]upervised release,2

while a form of post-imprisonment supervision, is still considered to be a component of the defendant’s total sentence”.). Camargo claims his constitutional rights were violated when the district court assessed a two-level firearm increase, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on judiciallydetermined facts . His Presentence Investigation Report and sentencing objections sufficiently apprised the court he was making a Sixth Amendment objection to being sentenced based on facts not found by a jury. U nited States v. Akpan , 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir. 2005); see United States v. Olis , 429 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). The increase violated Camargo’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by j ury, and the Government has not met its burden of demonstrating the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285-86 (5th Cir. 2005) . CONVICTION AFFIRMED; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 1/2/97

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARJORIE SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

and

LINDA SANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1235

(D.C. No. 95-S-906)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
1

 Linda Sanders’ mother, Marjorie Sanders, was also a plaintiff below but does not

appeal.

- 2 -

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Linda Sanders appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

her1 action against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The complaint alleged that the

IRS improperly sold plaintiff’s residence; plaintiff sought restitution and damages under

26 U.S.C. §§ 7426 and 7433. The district court found the claim was barred by collateral

estoppel.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district court

accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. We cannot add significantly to the analysis of the district court in its order of April 3, 1996, and AFFIRM for

substantially the reasons stated therein.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

James K. Logan

Circuit Judge
127 STAT. 510 PUBLIC LAW 113–30—AUG. 9, 2013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2576: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–153, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013): 

July 16, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–30 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify requirements relating to the 

availability of pipeline safety regulatory documents, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF PIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY DOCUMENTS. 

Section 60102(p) of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘3 years’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘guidance or’’; and 

(3) by striking ‘‘, on an Internet Web site’’. 

Approved August 9, 2013. 

Aug. 9, 2013 

[H.R. 2576] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 1 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 2 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 3 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 4 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 5 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 6 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 7 of 8

Case 1:06-cv-00065-MBC   Document 14   Filed 10/23/06   Page 8 of 8

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2014-03-10T15:23:48-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Note: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1250

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 12-CV-1118, Judge 

Shira Ann Scheindlin.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ANTHONY G. SIMON, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., of St. 

Louis, Missouri, argued for the plaintiff-appellant. With 

him on the brief were BENJAMIN R. ASKEW, STEPHANIE H.

TO, and MICHAEL P. KELLA. Of counsel on the brief was 

TIMOTHY E. GROCHOCINSKI, Innovalaw, P.C., of Orland 

Park, Illinois. 

LAUREN A. DEGNAN, Fish & Richardson, P.C., of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With 

her on the brief were RUFFIN B. CORDELL and CHERYLYN 
E. MIZZO of Washington, DC, and ROBERT COURTNEY, of 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, and LEAH A. EDELMAN, of New 

York, New York, Of counsel on the brief was STACY QUAN, 

Microsoft Corporation, of Redmond, Washington. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

PER CURIAM (DYK, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 November 8, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,653,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,137,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (391,162)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,091,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,503,175
<PP&E>                                      90,458,863
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,693,669)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             841,813,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       45,887,346
<BONDS>                                    520,199,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                 123,698,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               841,813,042
<SALES>                                      6,794,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           121,713,719
<CGS>                                       14,353,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              127,543,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,853,893)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (49,273,801)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (53,249,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (20,234,910)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (33,014,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (33,014,854)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (330,149)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (330,149)


</TABLE>
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Appellant, v. Josephine CHASTAIN, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of William Wilbur Chastain, Appellees.

No. 69-887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 5, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Wilford G. HILL and Wilford Hill, a partnership, d/b/a Hill Bindery Company, Appellants, v. COHASSET INDUSTRIES, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-1213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Yelen & Yelen, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Paul & Thomson and Jon W. Zeder, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 512.
#### Wafer COOPER v. Beulah BLUM. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. Beulah BLUM.

No. 8186.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1971.

Glynn Long, Donaldsonville, for appellants.

James E. Moore of Franklin, Moore, Beychok & Cooper, Baton Rouge, Vincent Sotile, Donaldsonville, John I. Moore, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

LANDRY, Judge.

Appellants Wafer Cooper and Northland Insurance Company neither appeared nor filed a brief prior to the calling of this case for argument on December 10, 1970. Consequently the appeal is considered abandoned and dismissed pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. Article 2162; Rule VII, Section 5(b), Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal, Vol. 8 LSA-R.S., Page 392; Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Kettmann, La.App., 221 So.2d 263.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 14.1  N-Viro International Corporation Code of Ethics  The Board of Directors has determined that the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hold important and elevated roles in corporate governance.  While members of the management team, they are uniquely capable and empowered to ensure that all stakeholders interests are appropriately balanced, protected and preserved.  This Code provides principles to which these individuals are expected to adhere and advocate.  They embody rules regarding individual and peer responsibilities to the Company, the Companys clients and shareholders.  Violations of the Code of Ethics may subject the officer to censure, suspension or termination.  Each of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer shall, at all times:  1. Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest in personal and professional relationships.  All material transactions and relationships involving a potential conflict of interest between the Company and the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer must be approved in advance by the Board of Directors of the Company.  2. Provide full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the Company. 3. Comply with applicable rules and regulations of federal, state, provincial and local governments, and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.  4. Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresenting material facts or allowing his independent judgment to be subordinated.  5. Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of his work except when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose.  Confidential information acquired in the course of his work shall not be used for personal advantage.  6. Share knowledge and maintain skills important and relevant to the Companys needs.  7. Proactively promote ethical behavior as a responsible partner among peers in his work environment.  8. Achieve responsible use of and control over all Company assets and resources employed or entrusted to him.  9. Report promptly known or suspected violations of this Code to the Chairman of the Audit Committee.  Each waiver of a provision of this Code of Ethics, and each material transaction and relationship involving a conflict of interest between the Company and the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer which is approved by the Board of Directors, must be disclosed in the periodic reports filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the rules of the Commission.