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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 129

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the establishment of Million

Mom March Day.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself and Ms. NORTON) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the

establishment of Million Mom March Day.

Whereas 10 children die each day in the United States from

gunfire;

Whereas additional Federal regulation is needed regarding

handgun training, education, and design;

Whereas the Million Mom March has helped raise awareness

of the need for further regulation of handguns;

Whereas a day should be established to pay tribute to the victims of gun trauma and to celebrate the Million Mom

March; and
2

•HCON 129 IH

Whereas Mother’s Day, May 13, 2001, would be an appropriate day to establish as Million Mom March Day: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) a Million Mom March Day should be estab4 lished to pay tribute to the victims of gun trauma

5 and to celebrate the Million Mom March; and

6 (2) the President should issue a proclamation

7 calling upon the people of the United States to ob8 serve such a day with appropriate programs and ac9 tivities.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM): 

## PJM Regional Transmission Planning Task Force Subgroups—March 23, 2012, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Local Time 

The above-referenced meeting will be held over conference call only. 

The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders. 

Further information may be found at *www.pjm.com.*

The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings: 

Docket No. EL05-121, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER06-456, ER06-954, ER06-1271, ER07-424, ER06-880, EL07-57, ER07-1186, ER08-229, ER08-1065, ER09-497, and ER10-268, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER10-253 and EL10-14, *Primary Power, L.L.C.*

Docket No. EL10-52, *Central Transmission, LLC* v. *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER11-4070 *, RITELine Indiana et al.*

Docket No. ER11-2875 and EL11-20, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER09-1256, *Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER09-1589, *FirstEnergy Service Company.*

Docket No. EL11-56, *FirstEnergy Service Company.*      ( print page 19012)    

Docket No. ER11-1844, *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.*

Docket No. EL12-10, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER12-718, *New York Independent System Operator, Inc.*

Docket No. ER12-1177, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

Docket No. ER12-1178, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.*

For more information, contact Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6604 or *jonathan.fernandez@ferc.gov*. 

Dated: March 22, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-7503 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 12.1 - Statement re: Computation of Ratios for the Fiscal Years Ended
June 30, 2004, 2003 and 2002

                                     TENGTU
                                 RATIO WORKSHEET

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Year Ended
                                                                          June 30
                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                          2004              2003             2002
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>                <C>
Earnings:
Income (loss) from continuing operations
   before income taxes                               ($71,099,536)      ($1,862,412)       1,578,108
Add:
Fixed charges as calculated below                         268,572           201,758          254,029
                                                     ------------------------------       ----------
Adjusted income (loss)                               ($70,830,964)      ($1,660,654)      $1,832,137
                                                     ==============================       ==========

Fixed charges:
Interest on indebtedness                             $     42,155       $   107,939       $  167,474
Amortization of debt discount                             226,417            93,819           86,555
                                                     ------------------------------       ----------
Fixed charges, for computation purposes              $    268,572       $   201,758       $  254,029
                                                     ------------------------------       ----------
Ratio of earnings (deficiency) to fixed charges           (263.73)            (8.23)            7.21
                                                     ==============================       ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 of the Registrant (the Report):

(1)
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      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 Registrant.


By:
      /S/
              EDWIN C. QUATTLEBAUMEdwin C. Quattlebaum,
          Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer,
            President and Co-Chairman of the Board ofDirectors ofMetaMorphix, Inc.


Date: May 18, 2007

---
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification



I, Stephen E. Carley, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of El Pollo Loco, Inc. (the Company);



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 Companys most recent fiscal quarter 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 the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the
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: November 15, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen E. Carley                    
|                        |  |  |  | Stephen E. Carley Chief Executive Officer
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10342 Conference Calendar

JOSEPH REED, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LORIE WILLS, CAPTAIN, STEPHEN JEFFCOAT, LIEUTENANT; JULIUS HORTON, LT; LOIS REILLY, RN; CINDY HEYMER, LT; FRANK J. SEARS, JR., SGT; TENA M. FARRINGTON, CO-III; NFN SKINNER, CO-III; CHRISTOPHER LUCAS, CO-III; KENNETH WILLINGHAM, CO-III, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CV-65

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** Texas prisoner Joseph Reed, No. 634538, is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Reed has brought an action or appeal in a United States court that was dismissed as frivolous.No. 98-10342 -2-
See Reed v. Wilkinson , No. 97-22347 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 1998)(complaint dismissed as frivolous in district court; appeal dismissed as frivolous); Reed v. Scott , No. 97-11347 (5th Cir. June 17, 1998)(affirming district court’s dismissal of complaint as frivolous); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Reed’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This appeal is DISMISSED. Reed has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF 

AT-18J 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

January 20, 2015 

Usability ofPb data generated at the Michigan Department Environmental 

Quality's Belding Reed Site 

f'V) 

r: ..

 \ 

Bilal Qazzaz 

ARD Quality Assurance Coordinator 

Air Monitoring and Analysis Section 

Air Monitoring and Analysis Section File 

\ _.,_._, 

While conducting siting criteria evaluations during the technical systems audit (TSA) of the 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) Air Monitoring Unit conducted in 

September, 2014, EPA Region 5 discovered that the lead monitor sampler inlet at the Belding 

Reed monitoring site (AQS ID: 26-067-0002) was less than 2 meters from ground level (40CFR 

Part 58 Appendix E § 2.0). Despite this deviation from siting criteria, the data generated from 

the lead monitor at the Belding Reed site can be used by EPA for regulatory decisions, based on 

the following considerations: 

• the difference in the height is minimal (0.13 meters) and we would not expect a 

significant difference in concentration to be measured at 2.0 meters off the ground; 

• the inlet height requirement to be at least 2 meters off the ground is to minimize the reentrainment of soil and dust that may contain lead, which would increase concentrations. 

This monitor's inlet was closer to ground level, but the data already collected at the lower 

height has demonstrated the Belding area to be below the lead NAAQS; and 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) 
• the QA Handbook Air Pollution Measurement Systems Volume II, Appendix D, Pb High 

Volume (TSP) Local Conditions Validation Template identifies siting as a Systematic 

Criteria and not Critical Criteria 

• all of the Critical Criteria identified in the QA Handbook for the lead monitor at the 

Belding Site have been met. 

Shortly after the TSA, on October 91h, MDEQ raised the height of sampler inlet to 80 inches 

(2.03 meters). 
Photographic Documentation of corrective action taken at Belding Reed 

(26-067-0002) Platform Modification, October 9, 2014
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF
      THE
      SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 25, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
      E. Carley, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §906 of 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 result of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
      August 11, 2008





/s/
                Stephen E. CarleyStephen
                E. CarleyPresidentEPL
                Intermediate, Inc.





This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
      not
      for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required
      by
      Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained
      by
      EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 I, Stephen R. Davis certify that: 

-  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Neurogen Corporation; 

-  Based on my knowledge, this 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; 

-  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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

-   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant and have:     -  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 registrant, 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;     
  -  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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     
  - Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
- The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

| Date: April 29, 2004 | By:   | /s/ Stephen R. Davis         Stephen R. Davis         Executive Vice President and        Chief Business Officer |
|----------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Mary Welsh DeHARRIET, Dierdre DeHarriet, Patricia DeHarriet, Michaela DeHarriet, Appellants, v. Enrique PINEDO and Marcelo V. Fagalde, Appellees.

No. 87-0285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 9, 1987.

Roger C. Lambert of Barnett & Alagia, Palm Beach, for appellants.

James C. Pilkey of Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Based on what was brought before this court, reversal is insupportable. As was said in *Zimmerman v. Vinylgrain Industries of Jacksonville, Inc.,*464 So.2d 1353, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), echoing *North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber,*143 So.2d 849, 853 (Fla.1962), “[i]f there is any reasonable doubt in the matter of vacating a default, it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing the trial upon the merits.” Accordingly, we affirm.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned officers of NeuroMetrix, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 12, 2008 |  | /s/SHAI N. GOZANI, M.D., PH.D.Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer and President
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/W. BRADFORD SMITHW. Bradford Smith Chief Financial Officer                                  

This
certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act of
1933.

---



QuickLinks
#### Keith L. MUZZANA, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 7177.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Oct. 29, 1982.

A. Lee Petersen, Anchorage, for appellant.

Michael N. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Larry R. Weeks, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for ap-pellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

SINGLETON, Judge.

Muzzana was convicted of first degree murder and was denied bail pending sentencing. The trial court apparently relied on AS 12.30.040(b) (prohibiting bail pending appeal to those convicted of certain crimes including first degree murder). In *Griffith v. State,*641 P.2d 228 (Alaska App.1982), we held those limitations on bail pending appeal to be unconstitutional. The affected provisions are therefore void and cannot justify the denial of, bail pending appeal.

Admission to bail is not automatic under AS 12.30.040. The trial court may deny bail if satisfied based on substantial evidence “that no one or more conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or prevent the person from posing a danger to other persons and the community.” AS 12.30.-040(a). Certainly, the court in making this determination can consider the facts of the crime of which the defendant was convicted and the likely sentence which he will receive in determining the risk of flight and violence which he presents.

The trial court did not make the findings required by AS 12.30.040(a) as a prerequisite to ■ denying bail after conviction. Therefore, we must REVERSE the decision and REMAND for further findings.