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



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American HomePatient, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrant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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants third fiscal
quarter 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 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):
 (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 registrant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 registrants internal controls over
financial reporting.
 Date: November 1, 2006/s/ Stephen L. Clanton

Stephen L. ClantonChief Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 21998D0926(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 21998D0926(01)

**Decision No 2/98 of the EC/Denmark-Faroe Islands Joint Committee of 31 August 1998 amending Protocol 4 of the Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 263 , 26/09/1998 P. 0037 - 0037 *

DECISION No 2/98 OF THE EC/DENMARK-FAROE ISLANDS JOINT COMMITTEE of 31 August 1998 amending Protocol 4 of the Agreement (98/549/EC)

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Government of the Faroe Islands, of the other part (1), and in particular Article 34(1) thereof,

Whereas, under Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Agreement, the Community has granted tariff concessions for Faroese fish feed, in respect of an annual tariff quota of 5 000 tonnes;

Whereas the Faroese authorities have put forward a request for increasing the tariff concessions of the Community for these products;

Whereas such an increase may be allowed, subject to its being spread over a three-year period;

Whereas to that end Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Agreement should be amended,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. In Article 1 of Protocol 4 of the Agreement, the text relating to CN codes ex 2309 90 10, ex 2309 90 31 and ex 2309 90 41 shall be replaced by the following text:

>TABLE>

2. Depending on the date of entry into force of this Decision, 1 500 tonnes in the volume of the tariff quota for the calendar year 1998 shall be calculated pro rata temporis.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following its adoption.

Done at Tórshavn, 31 August 1998.

For the Joint Committee

The Chairman

Herluf SIGVALDSSON

(1) OJ L 53, 22. 2. 1997, p. 2.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
undersigned, Joseph V. Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of Nutrition Management
Services Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:
 
 The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 of the
Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
      Joseph V. RobertsJoseph
      V. RobertsChief
      Executive Officer
 
 
 
 
 February
17, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6125

SENTELLUS MCDONALD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDLE JONES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-ct-03028-BO)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sentellus McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

November 10, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on January 

26, 2015.* Because McDonald failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 * The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this 

appeal, we assume that the date of the postmark on the envelope

containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Jonathan N.
Rubin, as Chief Financial Officer of Magellan Health Services, Inc. (the Company)
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1)           the accompanying Form 10-K
report for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Company.  Date: February 27, 2009  /s/ JONATHAN N. RUBINName: Jonathan N. RubinTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Rev 0 (9/08) 

## Com **ments i**  **n Response to “**  **Final r**  **ule; r**  **equest for c**  **om ments**  **”**
**Docket: FAA**  **- 20**  **12 -**  **1104 -**  **Directorate Identifier 2012**  **- NM**  **- 073**  **- AD**  Comments have been received in response to : **“ Final rul**  **e; request for comments,”** Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, if necessary. Then **include your name and**  **the date**  in the spaces provided, and return it to the AD directorate focal.
The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we re ceived from: The Boeing Company **(Please check on**  **e**

**)** These comments **have not** been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change of this AD. These comments **have** been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory

action. 

### (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual **FAA -**  **IR -**  **M -**  **8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)**

______Kenneth W. Frey

_____ 9 January 2013

__ Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
**Exhibit 99.3**

 
|   | **KPMG LLP**

600 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West

Suite 1500, Tour KPMG

Montréal (Québec) H3A 0A3

Canada | Telephone

Fax

Internet | (514) 840-2100 

(514) 840-2187 

www.kpmg.ca |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

The Board of Directors Canadian National Railway Company

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-5258, No. 333-131856, No. 333-197799, No. 333-7520 and No. 333-204974) on Form S-8 and in the Registration Statement (No. 333-223014) on Form F-10 of Canadian National Railway Company (the “Company”) of our report dated January 31, 2020, on the consolidated financial statements which comprise the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2019, and the related notes, (which report refers to a change in its method of accounting for leases due to the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842, *Leases*) and our audit report dated January 31, 2020 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports appear in the 2019 annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, and further consent to the use of such reports in such annual report on Form 40-F.

 

 

Montréal, Canada

 

January 31, 2020

 

 

 

 

*CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit No. A123145

 

KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG  network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.

 

----
Total Producer Milk and Number of Farms pooled in the Southeast and Florida Orders, 2000 – 2012

Year Pool Order No. Total Producer Milk Number of Farms

00 6 or 7 8,157,679,314 4,925 

01 6 or 7 7,736,613,458 4,565 

02 6 or 7 7,562,741,617 4,418 

03 6 or 7 7,241,953,040 4,100 

04 6 or 7 6,909,759,566 3,657 

05 6 or 7 6,899,643,060 3,362 

06 6 or 7 6,692,169,989 3,181 

07 6 or 7 6,441,706,101 2,963 

08 6 or 7 6,234,639,963 2,762 

09 6 or 7 6,313,530,718 2,725 

10 6 or 7 6,026,159,120 2,542 

11 6 or 7 5,940,420,523 2,473 

12 6 or 7 6,201,675,351 2,285 

SE States and Florida
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6471

NATHANIEL MORGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-94-3345-3-19BC)

Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that

a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Morgan v. State of South Carolina, No. CA-94-3345-3-19BC (D.S.C.

Mar. 11, 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.

DISMISSED
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10230

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02678-SCJ

CHERI RAU,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

versus

D. C. SCHWEIZER,

Defendant- Appellee,

ANDREW SALIBA,

 Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 13, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-10230 Date Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

PER CURIAM:

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a police officer, plaintiff claims that 

the officer procured her false arrest and malicious prosecution in violation of the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted the officer 

summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The plaintiff appeals. 

We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate for the reasons stated in the 

District Court’s dispositive order of December 22, 2015. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10230 Date Filed: 10/13/2016 Page: 2 of 2
#### State v. Liulama

15505

02/22/93

Denied

845 P.2d 1194
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 19

- 00493

- CR
IN RE Dino Greg KACHOIAN Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 31, 2019
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused to rule on his motion for forensic DNA testing. Because relator did not provide this court with a sufficient record, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
DISCUSSION To establish a right to mandamus relief in a crimin al case, the relator must show the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly

- f iled and timely

- presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008

- CRS

- 000369D4, styled The State of Texas v. Dino Greg Kachoian , pending in the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr. presiding.04

- 19

- 00493

- CR

- 2

- However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file “a certified or sworn copy of eve ry document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). In a case such as this one, a relator has the burden to provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion at issue was properly f iled, the trial court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza , 131 S.W.3d 167, 167

- 68 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Here, relator did n ot provide this court with a copy of his motion , a copy of the trial court’s docket, or any proof indicating the trial court is aware of his motion

. Also, relator did not provide a record establishing his motion , which he contends he filed on March 4, 201 9 , has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. Id. Because relator did not provide this court with a sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM Do not publish
# North Dakota_county_differentia
unable to work. The only physician's opinion in the record that addressed 

respondent's work abilities is Dr. Patrick McNulty's May 31, 2011, 

evaluation, which opined that although respondent's condition "prevents 

him from definitely going back to work as a driver," respondent could 

return to "modified duty as per [his] previous long-term work restrictions." 

Because respondent's treating physician determined that respondent could 

return to modified duty, and because there is no other medical opinion in 

the record to the contrary, we conclude that substantial evidence does not 

support the appeals officer's determination that respondent was entitled to 

ongoing TTD benefits. See NRS 616C.475(5)(a) (explaining that TTD 

benefits must cease when a physician determines that the injured worker 

is physically capable of any gainful employment for which the employee is 

suited); Nev. Indus. Comm'n v. Taylor, 98 Nev. 131, 132-33, 642 P.2d 598, 

599 (1982) (holding that when "[t]here was no competent medical 

authority contrary" to the injured worker's treating physician's opinion 

releasing him to work, TTD benefits must cease until competent medical 

authority determined otherwise). Accordingly, appellant properly 

terminated respondent's TTD benefits, and we reverse the district court's 

order denying the petition for judicial review. See Vredenburg v. Sedgwick 

CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087-88 (2008) (reviewing an 

appeals officer's fact-based conclusions of law for substantial evidence). 

It is so ORDERED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Gibbons 

2 

Pickering 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Janet Trost, Settlement Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

Shook & Stone, Chtd. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A cselo
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                            4,829,124
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       433,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12,704,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                       10,216,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12,704,619
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    989,187
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    525,730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   59,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     403,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 403,832
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        403,832
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0


</TABLE>
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00790-CV

SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

V.

RAMSEY 1 UNIT, Appellee

Appeal from the 412th District Court of Brazoria County (Tr. Ct. No. 78470-I)

Appellant Senrick Wilkerson, an inmate, has filed an affidavit of inability to pay 

costs but has failed to file additional materials required by Chapter 14 of the Civil Practices 

and Remedies Code. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless 

appellant fulfilled the missing Chapter 14 requirements, appellant did not adequately 

respond. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be 

dismissed.

It is further ORDERED that appellant pay all costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal. It is further ORDERED that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 21, 2015.

Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.
# C_2016202EN.01005501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/55

---

Article 16

(ex Article 286 TEC)

(ex Article 286 TEC)

1.   Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them.

2.   The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall lay down the rules relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Union law, and the rules relating to the free movement of such data. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to the control of independent authorities.

The rules adopted on the basis of this Article shall be without prejudice to the specific rules laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union.

---