alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

p.1 

Document Number: 

125) ll-E-85 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07 AM Sheet 125 of 264 
P.2 

FILE No. 147 04/10 "97 14=44 ID:WERNER CHICAGO 

04/10/97 15:31 019188410234 PE 

708 455 9458 

Post-It" Fax Note 7671 

PAGE 1 

Contact 

Plastic Compo 

CoJDept. 

Phone * 

*TlW?ift ~*_____\_ 

Fax» 'liS^W . -c>*W 

Data. ft of k. 1 jages^ I 

From 

Co. 

yi~ t pfc **.flp 

iV, O'llC ^ c. 

Phooo # 3f7-w-qvr> 

f««» ?«<-, wT-*jy<r ; 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company; 

Greg LaFlam, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

A 94 52 

November 4,1996 j j . r _£ 3 

Mr. Robert DeGraff 

Werner Company, Franklin Park, IL 

Telephone Number: (847)455-9450 

Contact Summary: 

Resin is stored at the Werner Co., Chicago Division facility in two large aboveground 

storage tanks, located indoors in an air-conditioned space. To mix a batch, a 55- or 85-gallon 

drum is placed on a scale, and predetermined weights of resin and filler are added to the vessel. 

A lid is placed on the drum until it is ready for mixing. The drum is then moved to the mixer, the 

lid is removed, and the impeller is lowered into the drum. A dome attached to the mixer lowers 

down at the same rime and forms a cover during the mixing process. Mixing takes place in two 

timed cycles (15/15 minutes is typical). Mr. DeGraff said the company performed a number of 

modifications to the factory mixer, which included adding the cover and installing additional 

explosion-proof electrical components. He also stated that the Franklin Park facility was the 

model for Illinois' RACT provisions applicable to polyester resin operations. 

Mr. DeGraff said that Werner controls the air velocity past the wet areas of the pultrusion 

ma/Thm** down to approximately 25 feet per minuie, but these low velocities are hard to measure 

accurately. The entire pultrusion department is air conditioned and kept at approximately 72"F 

ycar-around to minimize styrene evaporation and to stabilize the process. They also use a low 

monomer technology (30 percent by weight as received in the neat resin, and less than 25 percent 

as applied in the resin matrix). 

The facility presently is practicing direct die injection at 4 of their 10 pultrusion 

machines. (Limited die availability from an outside supplier is preventing a fifth machine from 

being run this way.) They have found that the fiber bundle must be "pre-wetted" by injecting 

resin into the middle of the bundle before it enters the die. This pre-wetting produces essentially 

no emissions, and the exhaust point normally used at the wetout area is not used during the prewetting process. Mr. DeGraff said that the company does not know its baseline emissions (the 

emissions without the current pollution prevention measures in place), because they have never 

run pultrusion on a totally uncontrolled basis. The facility has used low monomer resin from the 

beginning. 

REPORT IS ACCURATE lAvfrfc
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                     |  |                                           
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                   |  | State/Country ofIncorporation/Organization
|                                                     | 
|ICT Canada Marketing, Inc.                           |  | Canada                                    
|                                                     | 
|Eurotel Marketing Limited                            |  | Ireland                                   
|                                                     | 
|Harvest Resources, Inc.                              |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                     | 
|Yardley Enterprises, Inc.                            |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                     | 
|ICT International                                    |  | Delaware                                  
|                                                     | 
|ICT Australia Pty. Ltd.                              |  | Australia                                 
|                                                     | 
|ICT Financial Services Pty. Ltd.                     |  | Australia                                 
|                                                     | 
|ICT Barbados, Inc.                                   |  | Barbados                                  
|                                                     | 
|ICT Marketing Services of Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico                                    
|                                                     | 
|ICT Marketing Services of Asia Pacific Pte Ltd       |  | Singapore                                 
|                                                     | 
|ICT Marketing Services, Inc.                         |  | Philippines                               
|                                                     | 
|ICT Marketing Services of India Private Limited      |  | India                                     
|                                                     | 
|ICT Marketing Services of Costa Rica                 |  | Costa Rica                                
|                                                     | 
|Proyectar Connect S.A.                               |  | Argentina                                 
|                                                     | 
|ICT Group Netherlands B.V.                           |  | Netherlands                               
|                                                     | 
|ICT Group Netherlands Holding B.V.                   |  | Netherlands
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

IMPRESO, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Susan M. Atkins, Chief Financial Officer of IMPRESO, INC.
(the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
November 30, 2003 (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. |  | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. |  | Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Companys Form 10-Q is
incorporated herein by reference.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 14th day of January, 2003.

/s/ Susan M. AtkinsName:
    
    Susan M. AtkinsTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Curis, Inc. (the“Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Michael P. Gray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 ofoperations of the Company. 

 

Dated: April 28, 2004
1740#

TIME TO KITE THE WING

ROTAX + PROSTAR ROTAX ONLY

2.0 SEC 4.0 SEC 3.0 SEC 6.0 SEC

A A

B B

2

2

1

1

1740#

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SHEET 1 OF 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: 

DWG. NO. REV

A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

TOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

TOLERANCES:

FRACTIONAL

ANGULAR: MACH BEND 

TWO PLACE DECIMAL 

THREE PLACE DECIMAL 

APPLICATION

NEXT ASSY USED ON

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY 

REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC IS 

PROHIBITED.
1740#

TIME TO WHEELS UP

ROTAX + PROSTAR ROTAX ONLY

17.0 SEC 26.0 SEC

A A

B B

2

2

1

1

1740#

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SHEET 1 OF 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: 

DWG. NO. REV

A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

TOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

TOLERANCES:

FRACTIONAL

ANGULAR: MACH BEND 

TWO PLACE DECIMAL 

THREE PLACE DECIMAL 

APPLICATION

NEXT ASSY USED ON

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY 

REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC IS 

PROHIBITED.
1740#

DISTANCE TO KITE THE WING

ROTAX + PROSTAR ROTAX ONLY

10' 20' 15' 28'

A A

B B

2

2

1

1

1740#

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SHEET 1 OF 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: 

DWG. NO. REV

A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

TOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

TOLERANCES:

FRACTIONAL

ANGULAR: MACH BEND 

TWO PLACE DECIMAL 

THREE PLACE DECIMAL 

APPLICATION

NEXT ASSY USED ON

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY 

REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC IS 

PROHIBITED.
1740#

DISTANCE TO WHEELS UP

ROTAX + PROSTAR ROTAX ONLY

600' 800'

A A

B B

2

2

1

1

1740#

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SHEET 1 OF 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: 

DWG. NO. REV

A

SIZE

TITLE:

NAME DATE

COMMENTS:

Q.A.

MFG APPR.

ENG APPR.

CHECKED

DRAWN

FINISH

MATERIAL

INTERPRET GEOMETRIC

TOLERANCING PER:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES

TOLERANCES:

FRACTIONAL

ANGULAR: MACH BEND 

TWO PLACE DECIMAL 

THREE PLACE DECIMAL 

APPLICATION

NEXT ASSY USED ON

PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY 

REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF

SKYRUNNER, LLC IS 

PROHIBITED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAUNTAE TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

T. VIRGA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16450

D.C. No. 2:10-CV-02731-WBSGGH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Shauntae Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his housing

assignments violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

JAN 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16450

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s failure-to-protect claim

because Taylor failed to allege facts showing that defendants were deliberately

indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by assigning Taylor to a double

cell. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot

be found liable [for a failure to prevent harm] unless the official knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”).

The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s due process claim because

Taylor failed to allege facts showing that any of his housing classifications

imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995). 

Taylor’s remaining contentions, including those regarding judicial bias, are

unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the annual report of Syms Corp (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended February 28, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antone F. Moreira,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,
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 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.


                                                  /s/ Antone F. Moreira
                                                      -----------------
                                                  Antone F. Moreira
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  Syms Corp
                                                  May 20, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Steve Cuthbert, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that:

  1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Prologue;

  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 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
          quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

       c.   presented in this quarterly 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):

       d.   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

       e.   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 quarterly report whether or not 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: August 12, 2003                    By    /s/ Steve Cuthbert
                                             Steve Cuthbert, CFO
* 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. 00-40358

Summary Calendar

 

KATHY A. DRAPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CV-321

- - - - - - - - - -

January 19, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kathy A. Draper appeals the district court’s summary

judgment affirming the determination by the Commissioner of

Social Security that she is not disabled within the meaning of

the Social Security Act. Draper argues that the administrative

law judge (ALJ) failed to give appropriate weight to her

treatment for depression. Draper points to the reports of Dr.

Feltoon, a psychologist who believed she was suffering from a

depressive disorder, and the reports of Marylou Goranson, the

licensed counselor who diagnosed Draper with an adjustment
No. 00-40358

-2-

disorder with mixed emotional features of depression, anxiety,

and anger. However, none of the physicians who treated or

evaluated Draper determined that her depressive condition would

significantly hinder her ability to perform light work. The

opinions of the physicians provide substantial evidence to

support the Commissioner’s decision. 

Draper’s argument that the ALJ made an erroneous residual

functional capacity assessment because she failed to consider’s

Draper’s depression and the side effects of medication is

similarly without merit. Draper’s testimony indicated that she

did not frequently take the medications that caused side effects,

and those side effects were not of enough significance to prevent

her taking a job and performing light work. 

The ALJ’s assessment of Draper’s credibility is also

supported by substantial evidence. Draper argues that the ALJ

placed inappropriate weight on her activities of daily living and

personal observations at the hearing. However, Draper’s

testimony revealed that she performed enough household chores and

errands to support the conclusion that light work would not be

impossible for her. It is within the province of the ALJ to make

credibility determinations concerning testimony at administrative

hearings. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir.

2000); Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994).

Draper’s argument that the ALJ erred in propounding an

inadequate hypothetical question to the vocational expert that

failed to take into consideration her limitations is without

merit because the ALJ included in the hypothetical question all

limitations supported by the reports from physicians. 
No. 00-40358

-3-

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Earl COONE et ux., Appellees.

No. 3715.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 16, 1960.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1960.

*921Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., Joseph G. Rollins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Maddin & Copeland, Waco, for appellees.

WILSON, Justice.

The State contends the verdict in this eondemnation case is excessive and that there is insufficient evidence, or none, to support findings as to damages to the remainder on one tract.

These points are overruled. The •evidence fully supports the verdict. Appellant asks us to hold, in effect, that “the positive, categorical, factual statements of the engineering witness for the condemnor as to the type of highway to be built, grade cuts, etc.,” cannot be totally ignored by the jury. The record does not reflect the jury did this. Neither may it be said unequivocally that the engineer’s testimony, when the rest of the record is regarded, was ■so infallible as to bind the jury. His testimony in the respects urged, even if considered conclusive, affected the weight to he given the testimony of only one of appellees’ witnesses. There was other competent evidence of probative force ■supporting the verdict. Opinion evidence from three other witnesses as to “before and after taking” valuation supported the findings. While the verdict might be regarded as large, we cannot say, under the record, it was excessive.

The State complains of exclusion of •evidence as to sale price of other realty claimed to be similar and comparable to land taken. The property sought to be ■compared was unimproved land, although adjacent to appellees’. Appellees’ land was improved. It was a part of a filling station. An island for pumps, gravel driveway, concrete pipe and the overhanging portion of the canopy were within the taking line. It has been held not to be error to exclude the evidence under these circumstances. City of Austin v. Cannizzo, 153 Tex. 324, 267 S.W.2d 808, 816. The evidence did not show the sale was voluntary. The court inquired, “There was no way of telling whether it was a voluntary purchase?” The witness: “No, sir.” We cannot say the exclusion constituted reversible error. 16 Tex.Jur. Sec. 260, p. 593. We have carefully considered appellant’s points, which are overruled. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Registration Statements No. 333-120770,333-123491, 333-86057 and 333-107324 on Form S-3 and No. 333-40407 and 333-125036 on Form S-4 of our report dated March 15, 2005, relating to the financial statements of HPL Consolidation LP, appearing in Exhibit 99.3 in this Annual Report onAmendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. for the year ended August 31, 2005 

 

/s/ Deloitte and Touche LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

December 12, 2005