alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII
901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Melvia Gossett

P O Box 11909
Omaha, Nebraska 68111

RE: SAID: 25767

3110 Charles Street
Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

Dear Owner/Resident:

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3110 Charles Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization.If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency

Enclosures
Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

# 1 

# MMM 

# MM ill 111 25 767

LEGEND: H 

### - N 

## - P

- 01 

### - 25767 Samples Analyzed

LEVID Nwnber

Sample Number Lead Loading Structure/Feature Substrate Color Deteriorated Wndow, siding porch, etc.) (Wood, concrete, etc.) Area
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**
I, Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ProfessionalVeterinary Products, Ltd.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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 15d-15(e) for the registration, and we have:
     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;
     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation;and
     (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: December 15, 2004.
/s/ Neal B. SoderquistNeal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer
#### Lee P. HENRICH, Petitioner, v. Charles Foster BROWN and George G. Hunter, Jr., Respondents.

No. 36895.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1968.

Cecil T. Farrington, Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Reed A. Bryan of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the petition, briefs and oral argument in this cause we conclude that the writ of certiorari was improvidently issued and should be discharged, Fla.App., 203 So.2d 183.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, THORNAL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K 
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 FOR ROTO-ROOTER, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000755548
<NAME> ROTO-ROOTER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          15,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,050
<INVENTORY>                                      7,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,615
<PP&E>                                          43,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,413
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,869
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,722
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   672
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,837
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,074
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,677
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.87
        

</TABLE>
#### The STATE of Florida ex rel. Arsenio GARCIA, Relator, v. Honorable Alfonso C. SEPE, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-1068.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### John L. AGEE, Petitioner, v. RADIATION, INC., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. RADIATION, INC., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Petitioners, v. Johnnie L. AGEE and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

Nos. 36411, 36412.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 8, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1967.

Whittaker, Pyle & Wood, Orlando, for John L. Agee, petitioner and respondents.

Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, Mc-Ewan, Schwarz & Mims, Orlando, for Radiation, Inc. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., respondents and petitioners.

Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Gamer, Lakeland, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases are before us on petitions for writ of certiorari to review the Order of the Florida Industrial Commission dated March 23, 1967.

Our consideration of the record, briefs and arguments of the parties leads us to the conclusion that in entering the Order under attack the respondent Commission did not depart from the essential requirements of the law.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied. Petition for attorney’s fees in Case No. 36,411 is granted in the amount of $350.00.

It is so Ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., DREW, THOR-NAL and ERVIN, JJ., and WHITE, Circuit Judge (Retired) concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,128,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              127,253,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,254,848
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             146,237,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    119,355,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,045,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               146,237,341
<SALES>                                      9,804,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,804,962
<CGS>                                        3,759,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,759,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,256,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,339,276
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,755,490
<INCOME-TAX>                                   640,754
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,114,736
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,114,736
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of SkyTerra Communications, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
Nos. 33-85634, 33-89124, 333-76957 and 333-49290 on Form S-8 of our reports
dated March 31, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
SkyTerra Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and
2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the related financial statement
schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form
10-K of SkyTerra Communications, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 31, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,499
<INVENTORY>                                      2,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,013
<PP&E>                                          80,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,547
<BONDS>                                         34,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,482
<SALES>                                         79,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,476
<CGS>                                           60,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,990)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,990)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
#### James DUNN a/k/a Jimmie Dunn, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-131.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1972.

Melvyn Kessler of Law Offices of Mel-vyn Kessler, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon careful consideration of the several points raised on appeal, we conclude on the basis of the briefs, record on appeal and oral argument before this court that the *441same are without merit and that the judgment and sentence appealed should be and are hereby severally affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ-, concur.
H. Res. 6 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2013. 

Resolved, That following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Lucas, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. McKeon, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, 

Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE: Mr. 

Kline, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Upton, 

Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Mr. Conaway, Chairman; Mr. 

Dent; Mr. Meehan; Mr. Gowdy; and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Hensarling, 

Chairman. 
2 

•HRES 6 EH 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. Royce, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. McCaul, 

Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mrs. Miller of 

Michigan, Chairman; Mr. Harper; Mr. Gingrey of Georgia; 

Mr. Schock; Mr. Rokita; and Mr. Nugent. 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Mr. Hastings of 

Washington, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Issa, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. Sessions, Chairman; Ms. 

Foxx; Mr. Bishop of Utah; Mr. Cole; Mr. Woodall; Mr. 

Nugent; Mr. Webster of Florida; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen; and Mr. 

Burgess. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Mr. Smith of Texas, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Graves of Missouri, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Mr. Shuster, Chairman. 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Miller of 

Florida, Chairman. 
3 

•HRES 6 EH 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Camp of Michigan, Chairman. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**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 MangoSoft, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Dale Vincent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 results of operations of the Company.




By:/s/ Dale VincentChief Executive Officer (principal executive and financial officer)August
                14, 2007




This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                      33,498,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,565,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                   318,165
<INVENTORY>                                  1,497,202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,316,554
<PP&E>                                     242,889,376
<DEPRECIATION>                              88,796,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             219,394,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      272,385,944
<BONDS>                                      2,852,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       34,705,230
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,080
<OTHER-SE>                               (114,418,331)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               219,394,832
<SALES>                                     20,970,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           178,847,560
<CGS>                                        9,617,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              149,508,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               132,925
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          25,383,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,170,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,170,180)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,170,180)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Theodore SEIGEL, Ann Seigel and William Bowen Flynn, Appellants, v. Isidore SOLOMON, Appellee.

No. 67-491.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

See also, Fla.App., 201 So.2d 501.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Anne Wilson McCULLOUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 26, 2011 

y0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

142974 

WOODCARE X, INC. d/b/a 

CARETEL INNS OF LINDEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142974 

 COA: 294824 

Genesee CC: 2008-000132-MK 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

JANET OLSEWSKI, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.