alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Metro Kardash, Appellant, *v.*James D. Barger, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police, Appellee. Stephen Luchansky, Appellant, *v.*James D. Barger, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police, Appellee. Cpl. Curtis W. Guyette, Appellant, *v.*James D. Barger, Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police, Appellee.

*544Argued February 4, 1975,

March 6, 1975:

before President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate.

*Andrew M. Pipa, Jr.,*with him *Guy W. Sehlesinger, Wallace C. Worth, Jr.,*and *Paul C. Vangrossi,*for appellants.

*J. Andrew Smyser,*Deputy Attorney General, with him *Benjamin Lerner,*Deputy .Attorney General, and *Robert P. Kane,*Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

Opinion,

By order dated June 18, 1974, we directed the reinstatement of Stephen Luchansky, Metro Kardash and Curtis W. Guyette to their positions of enlisted members of the Pennsylvania State Police “as of the date of their, and each of their, suspensions from duty, with pay from the dates of suspension. . . .” *Luchansky v. Barger,*14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 26, 321 A.2d 376 (1974). No applica*545tions for allowance of appeal were made by the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. In compliance with our order, the Commissioner reinstated the members on July 1, 1974. With respect to pay, the Commissioner filed written interrogatories, the answers to which revealed that each, Luchansky, Kardash and Guyette, had earned substantial amounts of income in other employment during the period from the date of his suspension until the date of his reinstatement. The Commissioner then caused each member to be paid the difference between the amount he would have been paid during this period and the amount earned.

We have now before us the petitions of Luchansky, Kardash and Guyette to enforce our order of June 18, 1974, requesting us to order the Commissioner to pay them the amounts deducted on account of their earnings in private employment. The Commissioner contends that he properly interpreted our order to mean that the members should receive their pay less private earnings during the period of their suspension and discharge.

The Commissioner interpreted our order properly. Section 711 of the Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, *as amended,*71 P.S. §251 (Supp. 1974-1975), relating to dismissals after court-marital of members of the Pennsylvania State Police is silent on the subject of the entitlement to pay of members ordered reinstated on appeal. We intended by our order to do no more than prevent monetary loss by the petitioners and to protect them from possible economic retribution upon their reinstatement. Our intention, here declared, comports with the holding in *Vega v. Burgettstown Borough,*394 Pa. 406, 147 A.2d 620 (1958), where similar deductions from the back pay of a Borough chief of police were upheld, despite a statute providing in the case of reinstatement for “full pay for the entire period during which he may have been prevented from performing his usual employment.”

Petitions dismissed.
Jump to main content.

STORET/ WQX

Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA

 You are here: EPA Home

 Water

 OWOW

 AWPD

 STORET/ WQX

Welcome to STORET and WQX, EPA's repository and framework for sharing

water monitoring data.

The STORET (short for STOrage and RETrieval) Data Warehouse is a repository for water quality, biological, and physical 

data and is used by state environmental agencies, EPA and other federal agencies, universities, private citizens, and many 

others. Take a minute to browse around our site or click on the water drop to retrieve monitoring data!

About STORET/ WQX | Support for Data Owners | Obtaining Water Quality Data | Useful Links | Commonly Asked Questions

If you have a question or comments on this website or on the STORET system,

please call STORET User Assistance at 1-800-424-9067,

or send us an email at STORET@epa.gov.

[logo] US 

EPA

 Go

Get Data

Features

Download Data

Watershed Summary

WQX and WQX Web

Fact Sheets

STORET Web Services

WQX Web Tutorial Videos

Distributed STORET Archives

| STORET| US EPA Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\5385534062765424899\... 11/19/2010
Local Navigation

 About STORET/ WQX

 Data download 

 Online Tutorials

 Data Submittal

 Useful Internet Links

 Support

 Tools/ Web Services 

 Frequent Questions



EPA Home| Privacy and Security Notice| Contact Us

http://www.epa.gov/storet/

Print As-Is

Last updated on Monday, November 02, 2009

 Share

 Del.icio.us

 Digg

 Facebook

 StumbleUpon

 What is this?

Jump to main content.

| STORET| US EPA Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Program Files\Documentum\CTS\docbases\ProDocbase\config\temp_sessions\5385534062765424899\... 11/19/2010
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

[CELERIS CORPORATION LOGO]

CONTACT: PAUL R. JOHNSON
         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         (615) 341-0223

                CELERIS CORPORATION TO MOVE TO OTC BULLETIN BOARD

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (May 22, 2001) -- Celeris Corporation (Nasdaq/NM:CRSC), a
provider of specialty clinical research services to pharmaceutical, medical
device and biotechnology companies, today announced that it has been notified by
Nasdaq that, as a result of the Company's failure to meet certain continuing
listing requirements, the common stock will be delisted from Nasdaq's National
Market effective the opening of trading today. The Company's stock will begin
trading on the OTC Bulletin Board immediately.

         Barbara A. Cannon, president and chief executive officer of Celeris
Corporation, said, "The market has remained indifferent to Celeris' stock in
spite of the positive trends we have seen over the last quarters, most notably
our increased backlog and client contract awards. Our move to the OTC market
will not affect our clients, employees or the financial stability of the
company. Indeed, Celeris Corporation and its employees have a bright future. Our
customers continue to receive excellent service, and that fact is validated by
our high rate of repeat business."

         Celeris Corporation is a provider of specialty clinical research
services and information technology services that expedite and streamline the
clinical trial and regulatory submission process for pharmaceutical, medical
device and biotechnology manufacturers.

         This press release may contain "forward-looking" statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section
21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking
statements include statements of intent, belief or current expectations of
Celeris Corporation and its management. Such forward-looking statements are not
guarantees of future results and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause
actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the
forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties that may cause such
differences include, but are not limited to potential liquidity concerns related
to OTC trading, the uncertainty of market acceptance of the Company's clinical
research services; changes in the Company's backlog including potential
cancellation, delay or change in the scope of client contracts for clinical
research services; the Company's dependence on a single client for a material
portion of the Company's revenues; the market acceptance of the Company's
Internet capabilities; and other risk factors detailed in the Company's
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including the Company's Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                      -END-
#### Leonard STEIN, Appellant, v. Robert WIELAGE, Appellee.

No. 7331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

July *12,*1967.

*85Adrian S. Bacon, of Bacon & Hanley, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Harry M. Hobbs, of Hobbs, de la Parte, Whigham & Gonzalez, Tampa, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, defendant below, appeals from an adverse final judgment entered by the trial court sitting without a jury.

We have examined the briefs and record on appeal and find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial judge. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in the absence of an abuse of discretion by the court.

The final judgment is affirmed.

SHANNON, Acting C. J., HOBSON, J., and WILLIS, ROBERT E., Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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.
 /s/ Joseph J. UeberrothJoseph J. UeberrothChairman, President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)October 31, 2008
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.
EXHIBIT 23.1**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos.33-41542, 33-41543, 33-60901, 33-60591, 33-82474, 333-68399,333-42394, 333-95113, 333-99865,  and 333-91762  of Sierra  Health  Services,  Inc.(the "Company")on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-83664 on Form S-3 of our reportdated  January 29, 2003 (March 14, 2003 as to Notes 6 and 19) (which expresses anunqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoptionof Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets"),appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sierra Health Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.
Las Vegas, Nevada**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS****Chief Executive Officer**

I, Lori A. Jones, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSBof Analytical Surveys, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and the registrant’s have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

b) [reserved]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on suchevaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this annual 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(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, 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 materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: December 22, 2006  |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
| /s/ Lori A.  Jones       |   |
| Lori A. Jones            |
| Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132855 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132855 COA: 272501 Kent CC: 04-009089-FC RICHARD GERMONES REED, 04-009204-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 15, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1062

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy

Act of 1977 to improve the dissemination of information produced by

the Agricultural Research Service, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. WOFFORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension,

and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to improve the dissemination of information produced by the Agricultural Research Service, 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,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Research

5 Dissemination Act of 1993’’.
2

•S 1062 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISSEMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

2 SERVICE INFORMATION.

3 Section 1405 of the National Agricultural Research,

4 Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.

5 3121) is amended—

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ after ‘‘1405.’’; and

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 section:

9 ‘‘(b)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Adminis10 trator of the Agricultural Research Service, shall provide

11 the Secretary of Commerce with periodic updates on the

12 availability of information produced by the Service that

13 is or may become available to the public.

14 ‘‘(2) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the

15 Director of the National Institute of Standards and Tech16 nology (established under section 2 of the National Insti17 tute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272)),

18 shall disseminate the information provided under para19 graph (1), using all appropriate written, electronic, and

20 other methods, to—

21 ‘‘(A) Regional Centers for the Transfer of Man22 ufacturing Technology established under section

23 25(a) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a));

24 ‘‘(B) manufacturing outreach centers;

25 ‘‘(C) the National Technical Information Serv26 ice of the Department of Commerce; and
3

•S 1062 IS

1 ‘‘(D) other appropriate information sources that

2 the Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Magnetek, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending July 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Thomas G. Boren,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David P. Reiland, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

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

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

|   | /s/ Thomas G. Boren          |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas G. Boren              |
|   | Chief Executive Officer      |
|   | /s/ David P. Reiland         |   |
|   | David P. Reiland             |
|   | Executive Vice President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer      |

 

Date: September 29, 2006

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1229 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1229

     To repeal the provisions of the Service Contract Act of 1965.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

Mr. Brown (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Mack, Mr. Smith, 
  Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Craig) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and 
                            Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal the provisions of the Service Contract Act of 1965.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    (a) In General.--The Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et 
seq.) is repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal under subsection (a) shall be 
effective on and after the date of the enactment of this Act and such 
repealed provisions may not be enforced with regard to any contract 
entered into before the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
[No. 897-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

December 6, 1971.]

#### Ada F. Howard, *Appellant,*v. Catherine A. Herron, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King *927County, No. 715637, Frank Howard, J., entered October 30, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1213

To make amendments to the Congressional charter for Group Hospitalization

and Medical Services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 13, 1993

Mr. NUNN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To make amendments to the Congressional charter for Group

Hospitalization and Medical Services.

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

3 SECTION 1. LEGAL DOMICILE.

4 The first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act provid5 ing for the incorporation of certain persons as Group Hos6 pitalization, Inc.’’, approved August 11, 1939 (referred to

7 as ‘‘the Act’’), is amended by adding at the end thereof

8 the following: ‘‘The District of Columbia shall be the legal

9 domicile of the corporation.’’.
2

•S 1213 IS

1 SEC. 2. REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5 of the Act is amended

3 to read as follows:

4 ‘‘SEC. 5. The corporation shall be licensed and regu5 lated by the District of Columbia in accordance with the

6 laws and regulations of the District of Columbia.’’.

7 (b) REPEAL.—The Act is amended by striking section

8 7.

9 SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT OF REGULATORY COSTS BY THE

10 CORPORATION.

11 The Act (as amended by section 2) is amended by

12 inserting after section 6 the following new section:

13 ‘‘SEC. 7. The corporation shall reimburse the District

14 of Columbia for the costs of insurance regulation (includ15 ing financial and market conduct examinations) of the cor16 poration and its affiliates and subsidiaries by the District

17 of Columbia.’’.

18 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

19 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect

20 on the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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.
 /s/ Mark T. Detillion

Mark T. DetillionChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)November 16, 2009
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.
# C_2022463EN.01003102.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2022 — G-Core Innovations v EUIPO — Coretransform (G CORELABS)

(Case T-454/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark G CORELABS - Earlier EU figurative mark CORE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 463/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Core Innovations Sàrl (Contern, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coretransform GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2021 (Case R 22/2021-2) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders G-Core Innovations Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders G-Core Innovations Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---
#### Jerry ROSSMILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.