alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations of Alterra
Healthcare Corporation, filed with its Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements and related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,728
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,229
<PP&E>                                         904,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                (41,702)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,061,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,777
<BONDS>                                        791,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,420
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,061,397
<SALES>                                        376,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               376,181
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  381,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,669
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (3,837)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,806)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.26)


</TABLE>
#### AMERICAN COMPRESSED STEEL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Edsel BLANTON et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 1, 1962.

*889James M. Graves (Boehl, Stopher, Graves & Deindoerfer), Louisville, for appellant.

W. C. Edrington, Louisville, for appel-lees.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded the appellee, Edsel Blanton, compensation for temporary partial disability (under KRS 342.100) which it found resulted from a right arm injury incurred when his arm was struck below the elbow by one or more edges of a large metal plate. The Circuit Court affirmed the Board’s findings and award, and the employer (appellant) contends that there is no evidence to sustain the Board’s findings

Of course, if there is evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, it is axiomatic that the award must be sustained. The injury (cuts and bruises) occurred on September 24, 1959, was promptly reported and the injured man was treated by the company physician until October 6, 1959, when his wounds apparently were safely mended. He lost no time from work, but on March 31, 1960, he and several other men in his work gang were discharged for absenteeism. Blanton remained unemployed for eight weeks for which he drew Unemployment Compensation, then obtained work as a flagman with the Jefferson County Road Department.

When re-examined by the company physician in August, 1960, eleven months after the injury, Blanton was found to have little or no sense of feeling in the area of his injury. This physician concluded that Blanton had “a sort of self-induced hypnosis”, a fixation in his subconscious mind which the physician considered was probably not a permanent disability. Blanton’s own physician testified that although Blan-ton’s wounds had healed he had not been able to fully straighten the injured arm and did not have as good a grip in his right hand as he had in his left.

It seems to us that the testimony of the physicians together with the testimony of Blanton himself was enough evidence of substance to sustain the findings of the Board that Blanton's disability originated in the injury. The suggestibility of Blanton, his loss of his job, his family responsibilities and other factors may have contributed to his neurosis, but the effect of all of these factors was precipitated or heightened by the injury itself. The Board cannot be required to be more precise in its conclusions than a psychiatrist or psychologist would probably be. Traumatic neurosis is compensable in Kentucky. Eastern Coal Corporation v. Thacker, Ky., 290 S.W.2d 468. See, also, Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, Sec. 42.24. This type of situation is most troublesome because the line between neurosis and malingering is not always sharply defined.

The judgment is affirmed.
8/13/13 EPA State Program Status

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm 1/2

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES)

Recent Additions | Contact Us Search NPDES:

EPA Home > OW Home > OWM Home > NPDES Home > State Program Status

Who Are You?

- Agriculture

- Industrial and

Commercial

Facilities

- Interested Citizens

- Municipalities and

Wastewater

Treatment Plants

- States and Tribes

NPDES Information

- eNOI

- NPDES Permit

Program Basics

- Where You Live

Program Areas

- Animal Feeding

Operations

- Combined Sewer

Overflows

- Pesticide

Applications

- Pretreatment

- Sanitary Sewer

Overflows and Peak

Flows

- Stormwater

- Vessel Discharges

NPDES Topics Alphabetical Index Glossary About NPDES

State Program Status

Click here [PDF Format] to view a map depicting state authorization status.

Click here to view specific approval dates and comments.

State

Approved

State

NPDES

Permit

Program

Approved

to

Regulate

Federal

Facilities

Approved

State

Pretreatment

Program

Approved

General

Permits

Program

Approved

Biosolids

(Sludge)

Program

Alabama

Alaska*

American

Samoa

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of

Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Johnston Atoll

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Midway Island

Minnesota

Mississippi

NPDES Information

Recent Additions

FAQs

Publications

Regulations

Training & Meetings

Links

Contacts

You w ill need Adobe

Reader to view some

of the files on this

page. Files are best

view ed in Internet

Explorer and Adobe

8.0 or higher. See

EPA's PDF page to

learn more.
8/13/13 EPA State Program Status

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm 2/2

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New

Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Northern

Mariana

Islands

Ohio

Oklahoma**

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas***

Utah

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Virginia

Wake Island

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Office of Water | Office of Wastew ater Management | Disclaimer | Search EPA

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us

Last updated on April 14, 2003 1:58 PM

URL:http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.10



                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned director and/or officer of Karrington Health, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint Richard R. Slager and Thomas
J. Klimback, or either of them, my true and lawful attorneys and agents, each
with full power of substitution, to do any and all acts and things in my name
and on my behalf in my capacity as a director of the Company and to execute
any and all instruments for me and in my name in the capacity indicated
above, which said attorneys or agents, or either of them, may deem necessary
or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations and requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, in connection with the filing
requirements of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1997 (the "1997 Form 10-K"), including specifically but
without limitation, power and authority to sign for me in my name, in the
capacity indicated above, the 1997 Form 10-K and any and all amendments to
such 1997 Form 10-K; and I do hereby ratify and confirm all that the said
attorneys and agents, or their substitute or substitutes, or either of them,
shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                                        /s/ JAMES V. PICKETT
                                        James V. Pickett
                                        Director
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1165

___________ Vincent Fast Horse, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Russell Waterbury, Deputy Sheriff, * District Court for the District Bennett County; * of South Dakota. * Defendant-Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Cecelia Tallman, former dispatcher, * Bennett County, * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: June 19, 2000 Filed: June 29, 2000

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Vincent Fast Horse sued Bennett County Deputy Russell Waterbury for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 during and after Fast Horse's arrest for rape. The district

court granted Waterbury's motion for summary judgment and Fast Horse-2-

appeals. Waterbury's use of mace to restrain Fast Horse, who was caught in the act of raping and beating his victim, see Jones v. Shields , 207 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2000), Waterbury's failure to anticipate a physical attack on Fast Horse by his victim's friend as he knelt cuffed on the ground, see Mooreman v. Sargent , 991 F.2d 472, 474 (8th Cir. 1993), and Waterbury's conduct in taking Fast Horse's clothes for evidence in the rape andleaving Fast Horse naked in his cell for 30-45 minutes, see Key v. McKinney , 176 F.3d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir. 1999), did not violate any of Fast Horse's constitutional rights. We thus conclude that the district court properly granted Waterbury summary judgment and we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50082 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RIGOBERTO ZUNIGA-ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:15 -CR- 457 -6

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Rigoberto Zuniga -Espinoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zuniga-Espinoza ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50082 Document: 00513917670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2017No. 16

- 50082

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-50082 Document: 00513917670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2017
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 441

AN ACT

To reauthorize appropriations for certain programs under

the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS.

4 Sections 409(e), 410(h), and 411(i) of the Indian Child

5 Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C.

6 3208(e), 3209(h), and 3210(i), respectively) are each

7 amended by striking ‘‘and 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘1995,

8 1996, and 1997’’.

Passed the Senate April 26 (legislative day, April

24), 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 441

AN ACT

To reauthorize appropriations for certain programs

Violence Prevention Act, and for other purposes.under the Indian Child Protection and Family
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20805 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO MEZA-ROMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-18-1

--------------------

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Meza-Roman appeals the 87-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of

the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Meza-Roman acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
No. 00-20805

-2-

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 490; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Meza-Roman’s

argument is foreclosed. 

Meza-Roman also argues that his indictment does not charge

an offense because it fails to allege any general intent on his

part. Meza-Roman’s indictment, however, “fairly conveyed that

[his] presence was a voluntary act from the allegations that he

was deported, removed, and subsequently present without consent

of the Attorney General.” See United States v. Berrios-Centeno,

___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2001, No. 00-20373), 2001 WL

435494 at *4. Accordingly, his indictment sufficiently alleged

the general intent required of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 offenses. See id.

at *2-*4.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I,
Richard E. Fish, certify that:

1)    I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ICG Communications, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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 have:



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):



|Date: April 1, 2004 |  | /s/ RICHARD E. FISH, JR.Richard E. Fish, Jr. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2


                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly  report of Internal Hydro  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Alberto  Pastrana,  Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of 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:

(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.

Date: December 15, 2005                          By: /s/ Alberto Pastrana
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Alberto Pastrana
                                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

The Board of Directors
MeriStar Hospitality Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60463) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Incentive Plan), the
registration statement (No. 333-60465) on Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation Non-employee Director's Incentive Plan), the registration statement
(No. 333-66229) on Form S-3, and the registration statement (No. 333-37888) on
Form S-8 (MeriStar Hospitality Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan) of our
report dated March 20, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
MeriStar Hospitality Operating Partnership, L.P. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
partners' capital and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which
report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K/A of MeriStar
Hospitality Corporation.

Washington, D.C.
March 28, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         155,533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,549,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,705,106
<PP&E>                                         176,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,959,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          764,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,781,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,959,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,204,249
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,193,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,193,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,193,003)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.76)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment #9 to Master Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11.11 

AMENDMENT #9 
 TO 
 MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 

This Amendment (“Amendment”) effective January 28, 2010 (“Amendment Effective Date”) is between Synacor, Inc.
(“Synacor”) and Embarq Management Company, (“Client”) under which the parties hereto mutually agree to modify and amend the Synacor Master Services Agreement, dated December 4, 2006 (including the
exhibits, schedules and amendments thereto, the “Agreement”). All terms defined herein shall be applicable solely to this Amendment. Any defined terms used herein, which are defined in the Agreement and not otherwise defined herein, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 In consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and
valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.0	Modification of Notice Period: The parties hereby agree that notwithstanding the required notice period set forth in Section 6.1 of the Agreement, Client
shall have until February 16, 2010 to provide Synacor written notice of its intent not to renew the Agreement. If no notice is received by Synacor on or before February 16, 2010, the Agreement will automatically renew in accordance with
its Section 6.1. 

  

	2.0	Scope of Amendment: This Amendment supersedes all proposals, oral or written, all negotiations, conversations, or discussions between or among parties relating
to the subject matter of this Amendment and all past dealing or industry custom. This Amendment shall be integrated in and form part of the Agreement upon execution. All terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged except as
expressly modified in this Amendment; and the terms of the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, are hereby ratified and confirmed. Where the terms of the Agreement conflict with those of this Amendment, however, the terms of this Amendment
shall control. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date. 

 

									
	SYNACOR, INC.	 		 	Embarq Management Company
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert F. Cavallari
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert W. Smith II

					
	Name:	 	 Robert F. Cavallari
	 		 	Name:	 	 Robert W. Smith II

					
	Title:	 	 VP - Finance
	 		 	Title:	 	 Manager - Sourcing