alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

# Bene fits in 2030  

### 2030 sho ws e ffects o f full pr ogr ama nd appr oaches full f leet turno ve r  

### PM - re lat ed Pr ematur e Mo rtality  **660 to**  **1,500** avo ided ( Krewski et a l., 2009 & Le peule et

a l., 2012)  Proposal: 670 to 1,700 avo ided (P opee t a l., 2002 & L adene t a l., 2006) 

###  

### Ozone - re lat ed Pr ematur e Mo rtality  **110 to**  **500** avo ided (based on rang e o f six s tudies)  Proposal: 160 to7 10 avo ided (based onra ng e o f sames tudies) 

###  

### To tal M onetized Benef its  **$7.4 to**  **$19** Billion( 3% DR); **$6.7 to**  **$18** Billion(7% DR)  Proposal: $ 8.0 to $23 Billion(3% DR); $ 7.4 to $21 Billion(7% DR) 

###  

### To tal C osts  **$1.5** Billion  Proposal: $3.4 Billion 

###  

### Benef it - to - Co st

R atio  **4.5 t o**  **13**  Proposal: 2.2 to 6.8 Dr aft - Deliber ative
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Jian Xue, Chief Financial Officer of Claremont Technologies Corp. (the Company), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company; 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Companys other certifying officer(s) 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 Company and 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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 Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: December 30, 2006 /s/ Jian Xue Name: Jian Xue Title: Chief Financial Officer
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 23, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00879

- CR

Matthew Douglas HAYES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

A ppellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10842W Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on January 21, 201. On January 21, 2015, appellant’s attorney filed a motion for extension of time to file the brief. Although the

clerk of this court can administr atively grant a first motion for extension of time for up to thirty days, appellant’s attorney requests a sixty

- day extension. The motion is GRANTED; however, given the length of the extension granted, THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME

THAT THE APPELLAN T WILL BE GRANTED . The Appellant’s brief must be filed by March 20, 2015.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Order entered October 17, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00226-CR

MATTHEW JOSEPH ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-80447-2016

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 16, 2017 second motion to extend time to file a 

brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellant’s brief shall be filed by October 31, 2017. We caution 

appellant that further requests for extension of time will be disfavored.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
No. 90-520.

#### Town of Rye, New York, et al. *v.*Skinner, Secretary of Transportation, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### In re Floyd CHANNEL, Debtor. Dorothy CHANNEL, Plaintiff, v. Floyd CHANNEL, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 1-82-00016.

Adv. No. 1-82-0026.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Kentucky.

Oct. 1, 1982.

Ronald L. Rothman, David F. Broderick, Bowling Green, Ky., for plaintiff.

John M. Milliken, Bowling Green, Ky., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MERRITT S. DEITZ, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

The perfect justification for the doctrine of collateral estoppel is made simply by reciting the facts of this case.

Floyd and Dorothy Channel were divorced in Missouri in 1981. The decree of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dissolving the marriage is part of this record. It provides concisely that “maintenance is waived by both parties” and that Dorothy Channel was to receive “the sum of $13,-489.02 which is her one-half share of the net proceeds of the sale of the family home...”

Obligations that arise out of a distribution of property in connection with domestic relations proceedings can be discharged in bankruptcy. Debts for alimony, maintenance and support cannot.

Floyd Channel filed his bankruptcy petition in this district, and his former wife sued to have his obligations to her under the Missouri decree declared nondischargeable. A trial is sought.

The voice of the Missouri court resonates convincingly across the boundary into Kentucky. If “maintenance is waived” and the amount awarded to the former wife is a “share of the net proceeds of the sale of the family home” we need inquire no further. The Missouri decree will be given our fullest respect, as required not only by principles of comity but by the most literal reading of simple English.

As with two companion cases decided today, we incorporate herein our supplementary memorandum on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, based upon which we draw this litigation to a close without the necessity of a trial.

Upon the court’s own motion, after a review of this file and of the applicable law, and having heard argument of counsel, we shall cause an appropriate order to be entered today dismissing the complaint.
NO. 07-11-0248-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 5, 2011

______________________________

DIMAS MORENO, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2010-426,193; HONORABLE JOHN J. McCLENDON III, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**ABATEMENT AND REMAND**

****Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant, Dimas Moreno, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, in a drug free zone, and sentenced to fifteen years confinement.[footnoteRef:1]  On July 26, 2011, this Court dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction based on an untimely notice of appeal.  The dismissal was based on information contained in the judgment which reflected Appellant's sentencing date as April 21, 2011.  The notice of appeal filed on June 22, 2011, appeared untimely.  *See* Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) and 26.3.  Appellant filed a motion for rehearing supported by a copy of excerpts from the reporter's record demonstrating he was not sentenced until May 31, 2011, thereby making his notice of appeal timely.  The motion for rehearing was granted and the appeal was reinstated by order dated August 23, 2011. [1: See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§  481.112(d) & 481.134(c) (West 2010).] 

	On September 26, 2011, the official court reporter's record was filed.  The record clearly reflects that although Appellant entered his plea on April 21, 2011, the trial court deferred sentencing to allow him to take care of some family issues.  The record also shows that Appellant was sentenced on May 31, 2011.  Because the sentencing date contained in a judgment is the critical date for determining our jurisdiction, and because the reporter's record clearly reflects that the actual sentencing date was May 31, 2011, the judgment contained in the appellate record contains inaccurate information.  

	We now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of a judgment *nunc pro tunc* reflecting a sentencing date of May 31, 2011.  We direct the trial court clerk to forward the judgment *nunc pro tunc* to the Clerk of this Court in a supplemental record on or before October 21, 2011.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.

2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER ANDEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCEPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( the ‘Company’) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (i)  | the accompanying report on Form10-K of the Company for the year ended December  31,  2006 (the ‘Report’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (ii)  | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                            |                                                                                                                     |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 16, 2007  | /s/ Paul McBarron    Paul McBarronChief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, Finance |

----
Docket No: FAA-2014-1047 Dir ID: 2014-NM-157-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 7/29/14

Regional Airline Association 7/29/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 7/29/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 7/29/14
V 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1198 

For the relief of Flavia Maboloc Cahoon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Mrs. DAVIS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Flavia Maboloc Cahoon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR FLAVIA 

4 MABOLOC CAHOON. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201, and section 245(d), of the Immi7 gration and Nationality Act, Flavia Maboloc Cahoon shall 

8 be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjust9 ment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

10 permanent residence upon filing an application for 

11 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1198 IH

1 Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resi2 dent. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—Notwithstanding 

4 subsection (d) of section 245 of the Immigration and Na5 tionality Act, if Flavia Maboloc Cahoon enters the United 

6 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c) 

7 of this Act, she shall be considered to have entered and 

8 remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligi9 ble for adjustment of status under such section 245 as 

10 of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica14 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

15 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

16 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

17 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res18 idence to Flavia Maboloc Cahoon, the Secretary of State 

19 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

20 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

21 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

22 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

23 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

24 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1198 IH

1 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

2 202(e) of such Act. 

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Flavia Maboloc Cahoon 

6 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 

7 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na8 tionality Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 WELCOMING REV. DR. SILVESTER S. BEAMAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Delaware, Congressman Castle, is recognized for 1 minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize 
and to thank Rev. Silvester Beaman, pastor of the Bethel African 
Methodist Episcopal Church in my hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, for 
leading the House in prayer this morning.
  Pastor Beaman's prayer, asking this body to be a voice for the 
voiceless, to help the hurting and to inspire the weary is a message 
for all of us which we should carry forward each and every day.
  Pastor Beaman is widely known for his passionate and uplifting 
sermons. When I visit his congregation, I am welcomed with open arms by 
an enthusiastic group of individuals. He has worked to grow his church 
to more than 2,000 members, and he oversees a youth mentoring program, 
a senior citizens ministry and an AIDS task force. His compassion has 
no limits, and his enthusiasm cannot be contained. It is for these 
reasons that I have asked him to come before us today and to lead us in 
prayer.
  I would be remiss if I did not recognize Pastor Beaman's wife and 
childhood sweetheart, Renee, and daughter, Asaiah, who are also with us 
today.
  Pastor Beaman, thank you for being here and for sharing your blessing 
with the U.S. House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 21** **THE    ALLIED DEFENSE GROUP, INC.** **LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**     1. ARC Europe, S.A., a Belgian Corporation     Wholly-owned and majority owned Belgian subsidiaries of ARC    Europe S.A.     A. MECAR S.A.     B. Sedachim S.I., S.A.     C. VSK Electronics N.V.     (1) Belgian Automation Units, N.V     (2) Intelligent Data Capturing Systems, N.V.     (3) VIGITEC, S.A.     (4) Tele Technique Generale, S.A.     (5) CMS Security Systems, Inc.     D. Hendrickx N.V.     2. Allied Research Corporation Limited, a U.K. Corporation     3. Energa Corporation     4. News/Sports Microwave Rental, Inc.     5. Titan Dynamics Systems, Inc.     6. SeaSpace Corporation     7. MECAR USA, Inc.     8. Allied Technology, LLC     9. Global Microwave Systems, Inc.
EXHIBIT 13.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the annual report of Oncolytics Biotech Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Kirk Look, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Kirk Look


__________________________________


Kirk Look, CA


Chief Financial Officer


Principal Accounting and Financial Officer


March 27, 2017








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oncolytics Biotech Inc. and will be retained by Oncolytics Biotech Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 82-418.

#### GAIU Local 13-B, Graphic Arts International Union *v.*National Labor Relations Board.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### George W. Woodman *v.*John Mooring.

After *a*bond has been discharged by the principal debtor, it-cannot be set up again to the prejudice of a surety, by a subsequent agreement between the principal and the obligor.-

Debt,, upon a single bond, executed by one *Pinkit,'*with the defendant as surety.-

*Plea*— payment, on which it was tried before S waín, Judge, at Martin, on the last circuit,

The defendant proved, that the plaintiff came to the house of Pinkit, and purchased from him a negro for *$550,*from which was to he deducted the amount of,the bond, and the residuo to be applied to other debts due the plaintiff — that the hoy was not then delivered, and «that the sale was to ho completed by the delivery of the slave at the residence of the plaintiff, the ensuing week — after which the boy was seen in his possession. To rebut this testimony, the plaintiff offered to prove by his clerk, that a year after the time when the sale was alleged by the defendant to have .been made, he and *Pinkit*made another contract, by which a debt due him by *Pinkit,*incurred after that time, was to ho paid from tbcpu reliase money and the residue applied to the bond in suit.

*238His Honor refused to receive this testimony, thinking it to be irrelevant, and the defendant had a *verdict;*whereupon the plaintiff appealed.

The *attorney General*and *Gaston,*for the plaintiff.

*Hogg, contra.*

Hah,, Judge.

.The question presented in this caséis, whether the judge erred in rejecting the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness who lived with him as a clerk. I think that evidence was properly rejected ; because admitting the facts to be as the plaintiff proposed proving them by that witness, he was not entitled to recover against the present defendant. I do not speak of the effect or relevancy of the evidence in case *Pinkit*was sued. When the plaintiff purchased the negro boy, or when he was delivered perhaps, according to the testimony the bond was paid in pursuance of the express contract between *Pinkit*and the plaintiff, and the defendant was discharged from his suretyship; and no contract which the plaintiff and *Pinkit*could afterwards enter into, could revive it, and make the bond again obligatory upon the defendant. It not only appears thatthebond was discharged by the sale of the negro to the plaintiff, but a balance of the purchase money remained, and was to be applied to *Pinkil’s*credit in some other way. If the rejected evidence amounts to any thing, it shows an unfair combination between the plaintiff and *Pinkit*against the defendant. It certainly *discloses*no merits on the plaintiff’s side to entitle him to recover.

Per, Curiam. — Judgment aeeirmed.