alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORMER EMPLOYEES OF MERRILL

CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR,

Defendant.

Slip Op. 06-72

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: GREGORY W. CARMAN, JUDGE

Court No. 03-00662

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s letter dated April 14, 2006, advising the Court of a

change in Department of Labor policy, it is hereby

ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Department of Labor to determine what, if

any, affect its decision in Lands’ End, A Subsidiary of Sears Roebuck and Company, Business

Outfitters CAD Operations, Dodgeville, Wisconsin (“Lands’ End”), 71 Fed. Reg. 18357 (Dep’t

Labor Apr. 11, 2006) (notice of revised remand determination) has on Plaintiffs’ claim for Trade

Adjustment Assistance certification; and it is further

ORDERED that the Department of Labor will specifically determine whether Plaintiffs

produce an “intangible article” as contemplated in Lands’ End (see also, Former Employees of

Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. United States Sec’y of Labor, Slip Op. 06-53, 2006 Ct. Intl. Trade

LEXIS 50 (CIT Apr. 17, 2006); and it is further

ORDERED that if the Department of Labor determines that Plaintiffs do not produce an

“intangible article” as contemplated in Lands’ End the Department of Labor will provide the

Court with a thorough and reasoned explanation for its denial; and it is further

ORDERED that the remand results shall be filed no later than July 17, 2006; and it is

further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file papers with the Court indicating whether they are

satisfied or dissatisfied with the remand results no later than August 7, 2006; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant may respond to Plaintiffs’ comments no later than August

21, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward copies of this Order to counsel for the

parties.

/s/ Gregory W. Carman 

Gregory W. Carman

Judge

Dated: May 17, 2006.

New York, New York
Exhibit 31.1

I, Vincent A. Wasik, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended March 29,
2008, of Velocity Express Corporation;

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:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared,

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 19, 2008



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Velocity
Express Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OZ+Z.CS OF TZ-ZEATI-ORNEY GENE@AL OF’TEXA5 . >.i ., **AUSTiM**
**. t**  **Qarrocnuad m-**  **2 ’** **2: :** 

**. j.**  **(a -**  **- _.:** ‘

. . i

. .

S8tlat6 Bill Xo. 398; bh. 242, Ganoral t12Ir.l ‘
. Speeie.1..

Laws, 4.7th T&g;. , provides in part: "'SoctI;ion

1. A -- of 3ny incxqorated **Thnt** the p;ovsmir~ b&y city In $hio Stats my 1~542~ celva tkrou~h &Xi or dodicoki.or, snA is hereby oilp0X;islMl

to acquire, by purchoso **%it!lGUt eon-**  **.** dunmtion or by pumhaso throu,$ co:r0amH,ion plracrwx35qs, sod there&tar mlntnin onC operate 8s an strport, or 1ea?sc,or salX, to tho Ycdoral bovarment, -tracto of lc;rd e5.thor nithin 02 without; t&6 ‘corpo2ats lfrdtn of such city and within the county in urhich ouch city Is situated., ml Shci Cotiseioner~~ Conrt of. any county nay lUwifiso ucquuirc, fialntcln .and operate for like purpose tracts of lend withia the btiits OStha COWlI;~.

. IttB -- .That’ she (loveming body of any 5Jlcorporatca csty in t&ii3 state R3y reoo5.vc wtJmx~&gift oz1&aicatLon, and is hereby mpo+ cred to acquire, b~r.purchme without cordazuation,,. end thereaSter xisintein ruMoperate as ah,atiport, 0s 3ease; 02 sell to the~‘T&iIeral GoVornmnt, tracts of ~&ml :dthoMi tha county in rd&-h such ~lty~ ~. is 

### oitu3tsb,

p+3m0a c&i triscts zwe not with;tn~., ‘, .‘~, rive (~).&len bf ano%her inoorporatad oity that ,’ has a populatio?l of mro~than SiSteen huGi?od (1500) ~ people, eccdr6igg to the. Iwt precadirg Faderal 'Cen3c3,~~* -

._ :

.

.
_.

## . . .

. 

### Priorto thsanactmxtOf s.B. 398,c&es h>& 5KtJiOrity t0 3Ci&ro Ull& CQXZc?t5 5b~Ol$E! Uild&‘~ Ii. S.'l6(r, 41st Leg., but such authority extcnds8 ozlly t3 the coqM.sition of airports r;ituatoC wholly dthin t.>ecounty in With the city wss loaatd. T&umod for futhority for cities to acquire airport land outside the couaty xvi3 the basis or" the ener@enaoy cleaso of 

### 3,ii. 392. The diffxwum neda bet-.veancounties onil citice quits cviitently vies a c~neoioue one on the pri of the Legislatnre.

57hU.eS. 33. 433, Ch. Il.&?, Ganeral ena Special Lsv1.3, 47th Lug., psobsbly Is xot appl.i.cftblo, as it is, onsctod to proviCe for tfie ac#sition.+T 1enCrsVOX the USC of the P&ml Govmment~~. it is notsd that Zt 6180provides that the land so aoquixe8 by (1 ooaty nust 

### lier;itMll

theJ&lits

or ouch covnty. Bintin~ no otatute ox codstitntiosal p~ovIsioa 0xqrBssly giving authorSt,u to a county tcJ acqusre litnO oid3ido it23 bounilsries for nlrport pllQOSG8, nor froa6hiuh the po-aer could bo rortsombLy tiplied, -88 am ccxpullql to anums you- quorstion in the negative.

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PETRACOM HOLDINGS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,658
<PP&E>                                          17,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,004
<BONDS>                                         97,541
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,163
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     (28,939)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,670
<SALES>                                         14,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,552)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,552)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Shortz, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1006]

Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Saunders,*190 AD2d 1092, 1093, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1














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 of First American Scientific Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, J. Brian Nichols, Chief Executive 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:





(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.





Dated this 17th day of May, 2010.








BRIAN NICHOLSJ. Brian NicholsChief Executive Officer
No. 86-761.

#### Forrester *v.*White.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.
#### STATE v. CUMMINGS HOUSTON.

*Evidence*— *Confessions.*

Where the defendant, a -negro, was arrested in the night by a Deputy-Sheriff and three other white men, the party being shortly after joined by other white men, and while on the way to the Magistrate, the defendant made certain confessions, “no threats or promises or violence” to him having been offered, such confessions are admissible in evidence.

INDICTMENT for Larceny tried at Fall Term, 1876, of Guil-EoRD Superior Court, before *Kerr, J.*

The confessions of the defendant were proved by the State as having been made under the following circumstances: The witness (a Deputy Sheriff) accompanied by three other persons, arrested the defendant near the city of Greensboro about 9 o’clock at night and carried him before a Justice of the Peace about a mile from the place of arrest. While on the way and after four other j ersons had joined them, the prisoner confessed that he took the goods alleged to have been stolen. “No threats, or promises, or violence” to defendant were offered. The persons present were white men, the defendant a black man. The counsel for the defendant insisted that the evidence was inadmissible because the confessions were not voluntary. The Court overruled the objection and the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal' by defendant.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. J. T. Moreheacl,*for the defendant,

cited *State*v. *Charity,*2 Dev. 543 ; *State*v. *Matthews,*66 N. C. 106; *State*v. *Whitfield,*70 N. C. 356, and *State*v. *JDildy,*72 N. C. 325.

Reade, J.

To make a man “the instrument of his own conviction,” as Mr. Hawkins expresses it, is always repul*257sive. To pluck a secret from his own breast, to wing a shaft to slay him, although he may deserve to be slain, is cruel. It is only that sort of confession which comes of penitence and is voluntary which ought to be allowed to convict. And. this sort of confession after it is allowed to convict ought to be allowed to mitigate punishment — because it is a virtue.

We can judge of the inducements to a confession in any given case only from circumstances. If there be threats of harm or promises of favor, inflictions of pain or demonstrations of violence, then the confession is attributed to such influences; but in the absence of all harmful influences we fake the confession to be voluntary.'

The facts that the defendant was a negro and that he was arrested in the night time by the officer and three white men who were.joined on the way to the Magistrate, some mile distant, by at least four other white men, are calculated to excite some suspicion ; but they are capable of explanation and they are explained by the testimony, that there were “no threats or promises or violence.”

Understanding these terms to be used in the broad sense that no harmful influence was brought to bear upon the de-fendantx we must regard his confessions as voluntary; and ■therefore admissible.

There is no error. This will be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. ■ Judgment affirmed..
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 15

October 17, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

RE: Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries


  1). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-4290) 1995 Long-Term Incentive 
Compensation Plan and Individual Stock Options Granted to Certain Directors and 
Employees Prior to the Adoption of the Plan.

Ladies and gentlemen:

We are aware that our report dated October 17, 1996 on our review of interim 
financial information of Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries for 
the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 1996 and included 
within the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended 
is incorporated by reference in the registration statement referred to above. 
Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should 
not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by 
us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


                                       22
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dario Fernandez, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 549]

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 12, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiv*768ing unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

By initial determination mailed September 21, 1992, claimant was ruled eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits following his termination from his employment as a barroom captain at a restaurant. The employer applied for, and was granted, a hearing to challenge this determination. Claimant’s principal argument on appeal is that the Administrative Law Judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter since the employer’s request for a hearing was made after the 30-day time period specified in Labor Law § 620 (2) had expired *(see, Matter of Davino [Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr.*— Hu*dacs],*210 AD2d 778). Significantly, this court has heretofore held that "the time limitations of Labor Law § 620 must be strictly construed” *(Matter of Hodges [Hartnett],*154 AD2d 816, 817; *see, Matter of Orologio [Hudacs],*193 AD2d 1042, 1043).

Although the date typed on the employer’s hearing request appears to support claimant’s allegation of untimeliness, because no testimony was elicited at the hearing concerning the timeliness of this request and there is no other evidence in the record bearing on this issue, determination of this appeal must be withheld and the matter remitted to the Board for a full development of the record on the timeliness issue *(see, Matter of Rosinski [Ross],*85 AD2d 875, 876; *Matter of Kasses [Catherwood],*9 AD2d 153, 155).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9019-2]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or                     *http://www.epa.gov/​compliance/​nepa/​.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements

Filed 01/12/2015 Through 01/16/2015

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *http://www.epa.gov/​compliance/​nepa/​eisdata.html.*

*EIS No. 20150015, Final EIS, BPA, ID,*                     Hooper Springs Transmission Project, Review Period Ends: 02/23/2015, Contact: Tish Eaton 503-230-3469.                

*EIS No. 20150016, Final EIS, FHWA, FL,*                     SR 997/SW 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue South, Contact: Cathy Kendall 850-553-2225.                

Under MAP-21 section 1319, FTA has issued a single FEIS and ROD. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action.

*EIS No. 20150017, Draft EIS, USN, NV,*                     Military Readiness Activities at Fallon Range Training Complex, Comment Period Ends: 03/09/2015, Contact: Amy Kelley 619-532-2799.                

*EIS No. 20150018, Draft EIS, FHWA, TX,*                     SH 249 Extension, Comment Period Ends: 03/09/2015, Contact: Carlos Swonke 512-416-2734.                

## Amended Notices

*EIS No. 20150011, Draft EIS, BR, CA,*                     North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program, Comment Period Ends: 03/03/2015, Contact: Benjamin Lawrence (559) 487-5039.                

Revision to FR Notice Published 01/16/2015; Extended Comment Period from 03/03/2015 to 03/10/2015.

Dated: January 20, 2015.

Cliff Rader,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2015-01175 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              THE TWIN TRIBES OF TERROR: HAMAS & HEZBOLLAH

  (Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the U.N. Human Rights Council, a 
bastion of hypocritical countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that publicly 
whip women who have been raped, claiming rape is the woman's fault, has 
now self-righteously condemned Israel for defending itself from the 
terror group Hamas.
  The U.N. Council condemns Israel and ignores that Hamas has been 
murdering Israelis for years by firing rockets into civilian areas. 
Israel has been hit by more than 8,000 missiles, mortars and rockets 
since 2000 by the group Hamas.
  The resolution also failed to condemn Hamas for using Palestinian 
people as human shields for its war operations against Israel.
  Since the Council was established, most of its unfounded resolutions 
have been related to Israel. However, it disregards major human rights 
violators, such as the twin tribes of terror--Hamas and Hezbollah. This 
shows the incompetence of this anti-Israeli council.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, Hamas has just reinstituted crucifixion in 
Palestine. Most humans would agree this is somewhat antisocial conduct. 
The Human Rights Council is neither concerned about humans nor rights.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________
```