alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LSP-COTTAGE GROVE, L.P. AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         103,224
<SECURITIES>                                28,108,244
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,224
<PP&E>                                     125,596,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             160,582,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,581,535
<BONDS>                                    155,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               160,582,535
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Mr.  Nick Parsons

Environmental  Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/CCGEPA  Denver (Region 8) In  Re Docket ID:  EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505

Dear Mr. Parsons:
One of our primary concerns is the air pollution in Utah. As you may already be aware, the majority of Utah’s population lives in a very urbanized area co vering several counties, all of which have cities that consistently rank in the top ten worst in the count ry for acute spikes in air pollution, especially particulate matter.  This past winter has been typi cal of the air pollution we experience.   The urbanized counties of Utah have had the highest lev els of PM 2.5 in the country on several days, including one day where the PM 2.5 levels reached a value of 123ug/m 3 – exceeding EPA’s 35 ug/m 3 standard by 3.5 times!
There is no question that the rapid oil and gas dev elopment in the Colorado Plateau is having a significant detrimental impact on regional air qual ity.
The geography of Utah makes it ideally suited to be provided with all of its electrical needs from wind and solar power, and even to be a significant exporter of clean energy.  Why not undertake to make Utah the greenest state in the nation, and show the rest of the nation how easily this goal can be accomplished?
Tighter oil and gas regulations for the Colorado Plateau (which we support) will likely have a negative economic impact, so it is essential to offer significant Federal economic incentives for green energy production in Utah to offset this impact.

Federal economic incentives for clean energy production would solve multiple problems and make your job much easier in the long run. They would:

• Create more jobs

• Create clean energy infrastructure

• Create cleaner air

-Scot & Susan Morgan

Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 Scot Morgan to: Nick Parsons 08/03/2010 01:30 AM Show Details Page 1 of 2 Re Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- Oq

- 2010

- 0505

8/9/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web6526.h

...4008 Ralph Street

Salt Lake City, Utah 84124

801-272-1647. Page 2 of 2 Re Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- Oq

- 2010

- 0505

8/9/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web6526.h

...
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 31, 2018 Session Heard at Nashville **STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HENRY LEE JONES Automatic**  **Appeal from the Court of**  **Criminal Appeals**  **Crim inal Court for Shelby County**  **No. 03 -** **06997 W. Mark**  **Ward, Judge**

**___________________________________ No. W2015**  **- 02210** **- SC**  **- DDT** **- DD** 

**___________________________________** SHARON G. LEE , J., concurring. I concur in the Court’s opinion except for the analysis regarding the proportionality review . In 1997, thi s Court narrowed the scope of the proportionality review required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39 - 13 -206(c)(1)(D) by limiting consideration to only those cases in which the death penalty had been sought. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2 d 651, 666 (Tenn. 1997). A majority of this Court reaffirmed this truncated approach in State v. Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180, 217 (Tenn. 2013). In Pruitt, I joined Justice William C. Koch, Jr. in dissenting from the Court’s decision to continue following the Bland approach, as it improperly narrowed the proportionality review required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39 - 13 -206(c)(1)(D). Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d at 230 (Koch and Lee, JJ., concurring and dissenting). We determined that the Court should return to its pre -Bland proportionality analysis by considering “all first degree murder cases in which life imprisonment or a sentence of death has been imposed” and focusing on whether the case under review more closely resembles cases that have resulted in the imposition of the death penalty than those that have not. Id. at 230

–31 (Koch and Lee, JJ., concurring and dissenting) . I have performed the broader, pre -Bland review in this case, as I find it more consistent with the requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39 - 13 -206(c)(1)(D). Based on a review of similar first degree murder cases, including those in which the death penalty was not sought, I have concluded that Mr. Jones’s personal background and the nature of the crime s he committed more closely resemble the personal backgrounds and the crimes committed by other persons who have received a death sentence than those that have not. Accordingly, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39 - 13 -206(c)(1)(D) and based on the facts in this record, I find that- 2 -

Mr. Jones’ s death sentence is “[neither] excessive [n]or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the nature of the crime and the defendant.”

_________________________________ SHARON G. LEE , JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of Harry & David Holdings, Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 25, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers certifies 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 as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 9, 2006



By:

/S/ WILLIAM H. WILLIAMSWilliam H. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/S/ STEPHEN V. OCONNELLStephen V. OConnellChief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer
# • 2/24/92 .SPA 9 RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 72 Modification of F019 Listing 55 FR 5340-5342 February 14, 1990 (Non-HSWA ClusterVI)

FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION STATE ANALOG IS: MORE EQUIV- STRINALENT GENT BROADER IN SCOPE PART 261

- IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WAC 173-303 SUBPART 0 - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES


### t HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES revi se entry' IF019" 261.31 9904 

## x Industry andEPA hazardous Hazard waste No. Hazardous waste code


### * * * * * * * * 

# • F019.............................................. Wastewater treatment sludges fromthe (T) chemical conversion coating of aluminum except fromzirconiumphosphating in aluminum can washingwhen such phosphating is an exclusiveconversion coating process. 

### * * * 

### * * 

### * * *



# • February 14, 1990 - Page 1 of 1
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 17

- 00076

- CR

DONTAVIOUS TERRELL REDMOND, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017F00119

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Dontavious Terrell Redmond of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed a sentence of twenty

- five years ’ imprisonment, which the trial court imposed. Redmond appeals. In cause number 06

- 17

- 00075

- CR, R ed mond also appeals from another conviction for aggravate d sexual assault of a child. R ed mond has filed a single brief in which he raises issues
common to both of his appeals. Specifically, Redmond argues (1) that the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings because a motion to transfer p roceedings to the district court was never filed, (2) that the trial court erred in refusing Redmond ’ s request that his status as a juvenile had already been established in the juvenile proceeding, and (3) that the trial court violated his “SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CONFRONTATION AND PRODUCTION
OF EVIDENCE ” by excluding the records of the juvenile proceeding “ WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN BIAS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE’S WITNESSES

. ” We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Red mond ’ s appeal in cause number 06

- 17

- 00075

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude (1) that Redmond’s first two points of error must be overruled because (a) Redmond was not a juvenile when he was arrested, indicted, or tried, and (b) the district court had jurisdiction over these proceedings , and (2) that Redmond has failed to preserve his third point error.3

We affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

Ralph K. Burgess Justice Date Submitted: December 21, 2017 Date Decided: December 22, 2017
Do Not Publish
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Martin Barkin, M.D., certify that:

 

1.            I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of DRAXIS Health Inc.

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 report.

 

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

 

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

 

a.            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.            evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.            disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.            The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of company’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

 

a.            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  |   March 31, 2006 |                                         | By: |   /s/ Martin Barkin |   |
|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                  |   Martin Barkin, M.D.                   |
|   |                  |   President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Austin CLEMENT and Margie Bertrand Clement v. TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF KANSAS, INC. and Dairyland Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-2795.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Clement, Austin; Clement, Margie Bertrand; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-0977; Parish of Cameron, 38th Judicial District Court, No. 7359.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 651.

Denied.

DENNIS and WATSON, JJ., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

Radiant Systems CentralEurope, Inc. 

Radiant Systems International, Inc. 

Estorelink.Com, Inc. 

RetailEnterprise, LLC 

Radiant Payment Services, LLC 

Radiant SystemsAsia-Pacific Pty Ltd. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions Pte Ltd. 

Radiant Systems s.r.o. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions, S.L. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions Private Limited 

Radiant Systems UK Limited 

Radiant Systems International S.e.n.c. 

Radiant Systems International 2 S.e.n.c. 

RADS International S.a.r.l. 

Radiant Systems (Shanghai) Company, Ltd. 

RADSAustralia Holdings Pty Ltd 

Quest Retail Technology Pty Ltd. 

Radiant Systems UK (II) Limited 

Radiant Systems Limited 

Radiant Systems GmbH 

Orderman GmbH 

Orderman Iberica, S.L. 

Orderman UK Limited
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald M. DEW.

No. 86-K-2194.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Dew, Donald M.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR86-22; Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 39742.

Prior report: La.App., 495 So.2d 395.

Denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2220 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on noils of camel hair. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on noils of 

camel hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NOILS OF CAMEL HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.25 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 noils of camel hair) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2220 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dorothy AMBROSE.

No. 88-KK-1843.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 18, 1988.

In re Ambrose, Dorothy; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Union, 3rd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 29519; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20303-KW.

Stay order vacated. Writ denied.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2216 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2216

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain food processors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain food processors.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOD PROCESSORS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Food processors     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        powered by direct                                                  31/2011.......
                        induction motors,
                        each having a
                        multiple sealed
                        bowl system with
                        height adjusting
                        seals in the bowl
                        covers; having a
                        blade lock that
                        allows the
                        processing blade
                        to lock on to the
                        processing bowl,
                        with a bowl
                        capacity of 2.8
                        liters or more
                        but not over 3.85
                        liters for the
                        largest bowl
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8509.40.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2282 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on TMP Monoallyl Ether. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on TMP 

Monoallyl Ether. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TMP MONOALLYL ETHER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.02 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 TMP Monoallyl Ether) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2282 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KATHERINE A. BERG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-2309

FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-96-886-A)

Submitted: December 10, 1996

Decided: January 2, 1997

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Katherine A. Berg, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas John Cawley, John

Francis Cafferky, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Katherine Berg appeals from the district court's order granting

Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing her complaint filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994). We have reviewed the record and

the district court's order and find no reversible error. Berg's prior

sworn testimony before the Workers' Compensation Commission and

her submission of notes and certifications from her treating physicians

conclusively established that she could not perform the essential functions of her position, thus rendering her "unqualified" for the position

under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (1994); Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 406 (1979); Myers v. Hose, 50

F.3d 278, 281-82 (4th Cir. 1995); Tyndall v. National Educ. Ctrs., 31

F.3d 209, 212-13 (4th Cir. 1994); August v. Offices Unlimited, Inc.,

981 F.2d 576, 581-83 (1st Cir. 1992). We further find that the district

court correctly found that the accommodations requested by Berg

were unreasonable.* See Myers, 50 F.3d at 284; Milton v. Scrivner,

Inc., 53 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (10th Cir. 1995); Gilbert v. Frank, 949

F.2d 637, 644 (2d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the

district court. Berg v. Fairfax County Pub. Schs., No. CA-96-886-A

(E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

*Berg requested that she either be reassigned to another position, or

that others perform the tasks she could not.

 2
#### STATE ex rel. Lawrence GORDON v. Bruce N. LYNN, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections.

No. 89-KH-2135.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1989.

In re Gordon, Lawrence; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 277-859.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion to correct an illegal sentence he claims to have filed approximately two months ago. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion.