alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |                                                                                                                 |                                        |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                                                                                            |                                   |
| Dated:                May 15, 2007 | By:                                                                                                        | /s/ John              King   |
|                               | John                King  Chief                Executive Officer andChief                Financial Officer |
|                               |                                                                                                                 |

----
## OPPT-2013-0225 • Scanned &Processed in CIS by: PAULA 

# 12/3/2014

COMMENTS: DOCKETGENERAL CONTACT REPORT 

## REGElV_E t 

### OPPT CB Q 

# c Draft I Internal Deliberative I. Type ofContact (Telephone, Meeting, etc.): CBI?

### 20\~0EC-3 

### fll tO: 39 Telephone Yes II. EPA Information

Name(s) ofEPA Rcpresentativc(s): Date/Time: Greg Fritz December 2012 Division/Branch & Phone#: ContactInitiator? GF with EETD/ICB (202) 564-8583 Yes III. Second Party Information

Name(s) ofSecond Party Representative(s): PMN Number I Topic: 

### xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Form U Accession# Company & Phone #: ContactInitiator'! 

### xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No IV. Summary oflssues Discussed and Comments Received: The following chemistry issues were discussed after voicemail and email tag. Questions: A) In the 2012 CDR Form U you repmi Accession number 

# xxxxxxxxxxxxx Answer A] Q B) Answer B] Signature ofEPA Official: Greg Fritz Date December 2012 

# /+& L1ppT Zot36-L7s-Gp-<:.Or<'-Co 

## C, 

# \

gt\NITIZED
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Michael Benstock     
|Michael Benstock         
|Chief Executive Officer  
|                         
|/s/ Andrew D. Demott, Jr.
|                         
|Andrew D. Demott, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer  

Date: July 26, 2007
Order entered October 10, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00300-CV

LYNNE DUGGAN, Appellant

V.

TANGLEWOOD VILLA OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-1-091CV

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 6, 2016 “Motion to Extend Time to File Brief to 

Obtain Counsel.” We GRANT the motion to the extent that appellant shall file a brief by 

NOVEMBER 9, 2016. No further extension will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

 

We have made a reviewof the condensed consolidated financial statements of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. and subsidiary (“the Company”) as of September 30, 2005 in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), and issued our report thereon dated October 27, 2005. We are aware that such financial statements and our above-mentioned report appearing in the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 are beingincorporated by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105906, effective June 6, 2003) and that such report pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of a registrationstatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Paragraphs 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

October 27, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.01
 
 
 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Swank, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned each hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:  November 12, 2010

/s/ John TulinJohn Tulin, Chief Executive OfficerDated:  November 12, 2010

/s/ Jerold R. KassnerJerold R. Kassner, Executive Vice President and Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Swank, Inc. and will be retained by Swank, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marianne
Molleur, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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/ Marianne
Molleur   
|Marianne Molleur       
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 15, 2007
[No. 35129.

Department Two.

May 5, 1960.]

#### W. G. Gilbert, *Respondent,*v. R. E. Rogers *et al., Appellants.**1*

*Olwell & Boyle*and *Pomeroy & Harris,*for appellants.

*Parker Williams*and *Edward J. Novack,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 351 P. (2d) 535.

Per Curiam.

—  We have here another appeal involving only a factual dispute which the trial court resolved upon conflicting evidence. Again we restate the rule applicable under such circumstances: The appellate function begins and ends with ascertaining whether or not there is substantial evidence supporting the findings of fact. If so, the judgment must be affirmed. This court does not retry factual disputes.

*186The appellants, defendants below, appeal from a judgment against them on two causes of action, the first for fraud in inducing the respondent to enter into a logging contract, and the second for the breach of an oral contract to construct a logging road. Although appellants make fourteen separate assignments of error, the essence of all is only a dispute of fact which the court resolved on sharply conflicting evidence.

The gravamen of the respondent’s charge in the fraud action was that the appellant Rogers pointed out to him the boundaries of his tract of timber as including a very valuable stand. However, this belonged to the government. Respondent testified without equivocation or evasion that the contract would not have been made except for the representations respecting the boundaries. It would have been profitable to log the government timber, but no profit could be made in logging appellants’ timber which was inferior. Respondent proved appellants’ misrepresentations by himself and other witnesses. Such representations were denied by the appellants in which they were supported by others. The court specifically found that the appellant Rogers testified falsely in such denials, and that the court did not believe the appellant or his witnesses but that, on the other hand, the testimony of the respondent’s witnesses had the ring of truth. The decision on this dispute of fact was distinctly for the trial court and is not subject to review. *Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards,*54 Wn. (2d) 570, 343 P, (2d) 183; *Kelly v. Kelly,*55 Wn. (2d) 494, 348 P. (2d) 652; *Stewart v. Smith,*55 Wn. (2d) 563, 348 P. (2d) 970.

In the second cause of action for breach of the oral contract to construct the road, the appellants pleaded in defense the statute of limitations. Upon conflicting evidence, the court found that the action to recover the contract price was timely. Respondent’s proof showed that the work was done within the time limited by law while the appellants’ evidence was to the contrary. That dispute cannot be retried here.

Affirmed. The respondent will recover costs.
CEM Inputs ID Number: FRET 09-0536

Product: unknown Chemical Name: CAS 1464989-16-9

Scenario: Bar Soap Population: Adult

Molecular Weight (g/mole): 192.3

Consumer Product Weight Fraction -

Central Tendency (unitless):

0.01 Consumer Product Weight Fraction -

High-End (unitless):

0.25

Inhalation Inputs

There are no Inhalation inputs for this scenario.

Activity Patterns

There are no Activity Patterns for this scenario.

Dermal Inputs

Frequency of Use - body (chronic) 

(events/yr): 

329 SA/BW - body (cm2/kg): 242

Frequency of Use - body (acute) 

(events/day):

1 SA/BW - Hands (cm2/kg): 12.3

Frequency of Use - Hands (chronic) 

(events/yr):

730 Exposure Duration (years) chronic: 57

Frequency of Use - Hands (acute) 

(events/day): 

2 Exposure Duration (days) acute: 1

Amount Retained/Absorbed to Skin 

(g/cm2-event):

9.22e-06

Averaging Time (chronic) (days): 2.85e+04 Averaging Time (acute) (days) : 1
CEM Dermal Exposure Estimates

ID Number: FRET 09-0536

Scenario: Bar Soap Population: Adult

Exposure Duration (years) chronic: 57 Exposure Duration (days) acute: 1

Exposure Units Result AT (days)

Chronic Cancer

 LADDpot (mg/kg-day) 1.64e-02 2.85e+04

Acute

 ADRpot (mg/kg-day) 6.15e-01 1

LADD - Lifetime Average Daily Dose (mg/kg-day)

ADR - Acute Dose Rate (mg/kg-day)

Note: 75 years = 2.738e+04 days pot - potential dose

Note: The general Agency guidance for assessing short-term, infrequent events (for most chemicals, an exposure of 

less than 24 hours that occurs no more frequently than monthly) is to treat such events as independent, acute exposures 

rather than as chronic exposure. (Methods for Exposure-Response Analysis for Acute Inhalation Exposure to 

Chemicals (External Review Draft). EPA/600/R-98/051. April 1998)
#### ROSE v. HARRIS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 12, 1952.

Rodes K. Myers, W. O. Bilyeu, Leland Logan and Coleman, Harlin & Orendorf, Bowling Green, for appellant.

Joe S. Garman and G. D. Milliken, Sr., Bowling Green, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant was seriously injured when the automobile in which he was riding collided with an automobile owned and operated by one Frank Harris. He filed suit against the latter and his father. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the father. The jury then returned a verdict finding appellant and defendant Frank Harris each guilty of negligence, and appellant was awarded nothing on his claim. On this appeal his principal contention is that the court erred in directing a verdict ^for the father.

It is insisted that the parent was liable under the “family purpose” doctrine. We may assume, without deciding, that the circumstances justified invoking the doctrine. However, if it was error to direct a verdict for the father, it was not prejudicial to appellant. The reason is obvious. The “family purpose” doctrine is based upon an implied or imputed agency relationship. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Brann, 297 Ky. 381, 180 S.W.2d 102; Griffith v. Fannin, 306 Ky. 279, 206 S.W.2d 965. The jury found appellant guilty of negligence, which barred his right of recovery against the son, who was the agent. If the latter was not liable, then the principal, his father, could not be. See Dillion v. Harkleroad, 295 Ky. 308, 174 S.W.2d 419.

Appellant suggests that the directed verdict for the father influenced the jury to return a verdict favorable to the son, because the latter probably could not satisfy a judgment. We cannot assume the jury decided the question of liability on the speculative solvency or insolvency of that particular defendant. Certainly it should not do so. Since the father’s liability rested upon the legal responsibility of his son and agent, the jury’s finding effectively exonerated both. Had the verdict not been directed, the result would have been the same. Therefore, if error was committed, it did not prejudice appellant on the merits of the controversy.

Appellant further suggests in his brief that the physical facts were such as to entitle him to a directed verdict. However, the testimony of the witnesses, the marks *400on the road, and the positions of the wrecked automobiles raised a very real issue concerning which party was at fault. The physical evidence was not of such character as to authorize a directed verdict for appellant.

Appellant also argues that appellees’ counsel in his argument to the jury went outside the record. The argument did no more than question the credibility of certain evidence introduced by appellant which the circumstances tended to contradict.

This case involves a very serious, unfortunate and tragic accident in which one or more parties appear to have been grossly negligent, but appellant had a fair trial and we find no error in the record prejudicial to his substantial rights.

The judgment is affirmed.
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
Post Office Box 105621
Atlanta, GA 30348
Tel 1-800-634-7928

SUNTRUST

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing

RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1997 fiscal year:

(A)  I have reviewed the activities and performance  of the Servicer  during the
     preceding  fiscal year under the terms  of the Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
     Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or   Seller/Servicer  Guide
     and to the best of these  Officers'  knowledge,  the Servicer has fulfilled
     all of its duties,  responsibilities  or obligations under these Agreements
     throughout  such  year,  or if there has been a default  or  failure of the
     servicer to perform any of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations, a
     description  of each  default or failure and the nature and status  thereof
     has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(B)  I have confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
     servicer in good standing;

(C)  I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions Insurance
     Policy  and any other  bonds  required  under  the  terms of the  Servicing
     Agreement,   Trust  Agreement,   Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  and/or
     Seller/Servicer Guide are in full force and effect;

(D)  All premiums for each Hazard Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
     applicable) and Primary  Mortgage  Insurance Policy (if  applicable),  with
     respect  to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have  been  paid  and that all such
     insurance policies are in full force and effect;

(E)  All real estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
     accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance on
     any  Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid, or if any such costs or expenses
     have not been paid with respect to any Mortgaged Property.,  the reason for
     the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F)  All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G)  All annual reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
     required per section 6050H,  605OJ and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue Code,
     respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Certified By:
/s/Roy Briggs, III
Officer Roy Briggs, III

Vice President
Title

April 3, 1998
Date
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2788 

To prevent homeowners from being forced to pay taxes on forgiven mortgage 

loan debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2013 

Mr. HECK of Nevada introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prevent homeowners from being forced to pay taxes on 

forgiven mortgage loan debt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mortgage Forgiveness 

5 Tax Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME 

7 OF DISCHARGE OF QUALIFIED PRINCIPAL 

8 RESIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

10 108(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amendVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:05 Jul 24, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2788.IH H2788

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2788 IH

1 ed by striking ‘‘January 1, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘January 

2 1, 2016’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to indebtedness discharged after 

5 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7408
WALTER WHITE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN JOYCE FRANCIS, Defendant- Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00166-FPS) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter White, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Walter White appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. White v. Francis , No. 5:06-cv-00166-FPS, (N.D.W. Va. July 18, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3085 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Herbert 

Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. RUSH, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, 

Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. 

DUCKWORTH, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. 

ENYART, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. SHIMKUS, 

Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mrs. BUSTOS, and Mr. SCHOCK) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPTAIN HERBERT JOHNSON MEMORIAL POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 3349 West 111th Street in ChiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:30 Sep 13, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3085.IH H3085

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3085 IH

1 cago, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cap2 tain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain Herbert 

7 Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS