alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[CP&L Logo Appears Here]

Carolina Power & Light Company                  Bonnie V. Hancock
P.O. Box 1551                                   Vice President - Accounting
Raleigh, NC  27602                                 and Controller


                                        March 19, 1997



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, NW
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, DC  20549

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the General Instructions to Form 10-K, please be advised
that the financial statements contained in the 1996 Form 10-K of
Carolina Power & Light Company do not reflect any changes from the
preceding year in accounting principles or practices or in the
method of applying any such principles or practices.

                                        Sincerely yours,



                                        /s/ Bonnie V. Hancock
Order entered April 8, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00366-CV

IN RE HYDROSCIENCE INC, AND DWIGHT M. FRANCIS, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-3690

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We DENY relators’ motion for temporary relief and relators’ supplemental motion for temporary 

relief. We ORDER relators to bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Exhibit 10.18



  
 Exhibit 10.18 
  
 AMENDMENT No. 1 
  
 TO 
  
 INSMED INCORPORATED 
 2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

 
 WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Insmed Incorporated 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), effective as of April 5, 2000;
and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XII of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved this Amendment No.
1 to the Plan as of January 30, 2002, subject to the approval of the Company’s shareholders, to (i) increase the number of shares to be issued under the Plan from 3,000,000 shares to 5,500,000 shares and (ii) increase the limit on options that
may be granted to any Plan participant in a calendar year from 250,000 shares to 750,000 shares of Common Stock. 
  
 1.    Section 5.02 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 Section 5.02    Aggregate Limit. 
  
 Effective as of the date of the
2002 meeting of the shareholders of the Company, the maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan is 5,500,000. That maximum number of shares may be increased each January 1 during the term of the Plan by a
number of shares equal to 1.0% of the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding on the preceding December 31. In no event, however, may the annual increases cause the maximum number of shares that may be issued under the Plan to exceed 6,250,000
shares of Common Stock. The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Article IX. 
  
 2.    Subject to shareholder approval, Section 6.01 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 Section 6.01    Award. 
  
 In accordance with the provisions of Article IV, the Administrator will designate each individual to whom an Option is to be granted and will specify the number of
shares of Common Stock covered by such awards; provided, however, that no Participant may be granted Options in any calendar year covering more than 750,000 shares of Common Stock.
JOKAVIOUS LEE WILSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1404

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 14, 2015. 

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael G. Allen, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 31.1****CEO Certification**I, Paul A. Ormond, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manor Care, Inc.;  (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and (5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: May 5, 2006/s/ Paul A. Ormond
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70 38 40 42 44 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/31 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■

■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
. . . . -...:... OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

VHoaorablo P. 0. Booth, d&it vetozaaMlm# ?sgo 2
Aa vo 0oMtnJm uururter, no aou labo~to or8uppltes ia lnuiyway & 

### . LZ~í Prora lt l qul~t been noved to a aov 1oooti.m..-- Boaorable f. 0. Booth, Chle? Votodnarlaa, pIsa 3

. .Youra vary tnlly

ATTORSEY

- OFlxxAs
H. R. 1492 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for inclusion 

in, the Yucca House National Monument. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Yucca House National Monument 

Expansion Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) NATIONAL MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘National Monument’’ 

means the Yucca House National Monument in Cortez, Colorado, established by Presidential Proclamation 1549. 

(2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Yucca 

House National Monument Proposed Boundary Addition’’, numbered 318/105,085A, and dated February 27, 2019. 

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

of the Interior. 

SEC. 3. YUCCA HOUSE NATIONAL MONUMENT LAND ACQUISITION. 

(a) ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may acquire by donation the 

approximately 160 acres of land and any interests in the land 

that is identified on the map. 

(b) BOUNDARY.—On the acquisition of the land authorized under 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust the boundaries of the 

National Monument to include the acquired land. 

(c) ADMINISTRATION.—The land and any interests in land 

acquired under subsection (a) shall be administered as part of 

the National Monument. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
ACCEPTED

12-14-00087-cr

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

4/20/2015 10:36:17 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/20/2015 10:36:17 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### Joseph A. Mitura, Respondent, v Grady W. Roy et al., Appellants.

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: While participating in a picnic at defendants’ residence, plaintiff dove off the diving board of defendants’ backyard swimming pool. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, defendants’ dog jumped into the pool at the same time and plaintiff landed on the dog, suffering a deep gash to his face. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

The owner of a domestic animal will be held liable for injuries caused by the animal if the owner has knowledge that the animal has vicious propensities. "[V]icious propensities which go to establish liability include a propensity to do *any*act which might endanger another” *(Lagoda v Dorr,*28 AD2d 208, 209; *see also, Shain v Crausman,*3 NY2d 764; *Shuffian v Garfola, 9*AD2d 910; *Thirlwall v Galanter,*66 Misc 2d 88, 90).

Here, there is evidence that defendants knew that their dog had a habit of jumping into the pool if it saw a person dive or jump in. In fact, in a statement to plaintiff’s investigator, defendants admitted that in the past they put the dog in the garage while people were using the pool, and that they were *1021trying to train the dog to enter the pool only at the shallow end. This evidence raises a factual question on the issue of defendants’ knowledge sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Defendants argue that plaintiff knew that the dog would jump into the pool; therefore, plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries. That issue cannot be resolved on this record as a matter of law. At his EBT, plaintiff admitted knowing that the dog had a habit of swimming in the pool, but denied knowledge that the dog would jump into the pool at the deep end. Defendants admitted that plaintiff had never seen the dog jump into the deep end of the pool. Consequently, a factual issue exists concerning whether plaintiff understood and appreciated the risk of injury and consented to it *(see generally,*Prosser and Keeton, Torts §68, at 486-492 [5th ed]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VI

TRANSPORT

TRANSPORT

Article 98

(ex Article 78 TEC)

(ex Article 78 TEC)

The provisions of this Title shall not form an obstacle to the application of measures taken in the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that such measures are required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic affected by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision repealing this Article.

---
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Bradley Real Estate, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-87084 and 33-62200) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos.
33-34884 and 33-65180) on Form S-8 of Bradley Real Estate, Inc. of our report
dated January 24, 1997, except as to Note 10, which is as of March 13, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets and related schedule of Bradley
Real Estate, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in share owners'  equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form
10-K405 of Bradley Real Estate, Inc.



                                  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 24, 1997


                                     65
Certifications:

I, Joseph F. Kruy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cambex Corporation;

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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: March 30, 2004

/s/ Joseph F. Kruy
Joseph F. Kruy
President and Treasurer
(principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
# C_2016202EN.01009301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/93

---

Article 110

(ex Article 90 TEC)

(ex Article 90 TEC)

No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.

Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             10 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 Yang Holding Company ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I. James
Chow, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         Material respects, the financial condition and result of operation of
         the Company.

                                            /s/ James Chow
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            James Chow
                                            President, Treasurer and Secretary,
                                            Principal Financial and
                                            Accounting Officer
November 11, 2004
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Room 2646-South, STOP 0268

Washington, DC 20250-0201

May 16, 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIC 

STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

FROM: Miles McEvoy

Deputy Administrator

National Organic Program (NOP)

SUBJECT: NOSB Review of Petitioned Substances for Aquaculture 

The National Organic Program (NOP) is preparing a proposed rule for the production and 

certification of organic animal aquaculture products. We expect this rulemaking process to take 

place over the next two years. In anticipation of this rulemaking, the NOP has received a 

number of petitions for substances to be added to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances (National List) for use in organic aquaculture. These petitioned substances must be 

reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The petitioned substances that the 

NOSB recommends for addition to the National List may be included in a proposed rule for 

organic aquaculture production.

The purpose of this memorandum is to formally ask the NOSB to review these petitioned 

substances for compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) criteria (7 U.S.C. 

6518(m)) and NOP regulations at 7 CFR 205.600. Since we will be developing the proposed 

rule based on aquaculture-related NOSB recommendations already submitted to the NOP, those 

recommendations should be used to guide your review. 

Furthermore, the NOSB previously recommended establishing four new sections of the National 

List for aquaculture materials, i.e., §§ 205.609-205.612. At this time, the NOP has not 

determined whether to establish new sections of the National List for aquaculture, or whether 

aquaculture materials should be incorporated into the existing framework for National List 

substances. The NOP expects that the majority of aquaculture substances petitioned to the 

National List will be petitions for substances already listed at section 205.601 or 205.603 for 

organic crop or livestock production respectively. 

The NOP would like the NOSB to use the following framework for review of aquaculture 

petitions:
Memorandum for the Chairperson, NOSB

Page 2

• The NOSB Livestock Committee should review petitions for aquatic animal production.

• The NOSB Crops Committee should review petitions for aquatic plant production.

• The NOSB Committees should request third-party technical reports for petitioned 

substances which do not have reports available. Committees should refer to technical 

reports previously prepared for substances used in crop or livestock production and 

determine whether supplemental information is necessary for the Committee to review 

the substance in the context of aquaculture. Any requests for supplemental information 

should be coordinated through Dr. Lisa Brines, NOP National List Manager. 

As always, we appreciate the hard work, knowledge and experience the NOSB lends to the 

regulatory process. If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to 

contact me or Michelle Arsenault, NOSB Advisory Board Specialist.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

 

I, John R. Howe, Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer of The Cato Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that on the date ofthis Certification:

 

1.    the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 28,2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.    the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:March 27, 2012

|   |                      |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | /s/  John R. Howe         |
|   | John  R. Howe             |
|   | Executive  Vice President |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer  |

 

75

 

----
#### Emanuel PEA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17824.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 24, 1963.

Decided Oct. 10, 1963.

Petition for Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1963.

Mr. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court), for appellant.

Mr. Jerome Nelson, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Edgerton, Senior Circuit Judge, and Danaher and McGowan, Circuit J udges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of second degree murder and assault with a dangerous weapon. A detective questioned him and got a confession while he was under arrest and lying wounded in a hospital. In keeping with the spirit of Rule 5(b), F.R.Crim.P., we might have expected that the detective would have warned him of his right to remain silent. The record does not show whether the detective did so. It does not show that either the prosecution or the defense “sought to ventilate the is*443sue.” In these circumstances we cannot reverse. Hawkins v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 341-342, 288 F.2d 122, 125-126 (1960) (concurring opinion).

Affirmed.