alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Andre Gagne’s review of the impact to smaller transit car based on

**the committee’s discussions of inter -** **car doorways. Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	NYCT	Subway**  **NOTES** 

## - Clear end door opening is 30.75’’ at the cab end, increasing it to more than 32’’ would restrict the driver’s field of vision; 

## - Wheelchair area would further infringe upon side door entrance which is already undesirable; 

## - Cab door opening also restricts wheelchair passage even before it reaches the end door; 

## - Side door clear opening is 50’’,which is much higher than the proposed 32’’; 

## - Vertical (floor to ceiling) stanchions prevent wheelchairs from moving down the aisle; 

### GENERAL	COMMENTS 

## - Should consider keeping the 30’’ requirement at cab ends only; 

## - Facing side doors are not always in line with each other, and some vestibules have a side door only on one side of the vehicle; 

### Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	Chicago	Transit **NOTES** 

## - End door clear opening is 19’’ (including handholds), increasing it to more than 32’’ at the cab end would severely restrict the driver’s field of vision ; 

## - There is only 26” of clearance between the two convertible seats, which prevents wheelchairs from moving down the aisle; 

## - Side door clear opening is 50’’;

### Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	BART

**NOTES** 

## - Side door clear opening is 54’’; 

## - Minimum aisle width is 32’’; 

## - Position of tripod was found to be detrimental to wheelchair maneuverability, even though the 32’’ path was clearly provided; 

## - Non - cab end door clear opening is 39’’ 

## - Cab end (crew) door clea r opening is 28’’, increasing it to more than 32’’ would severely restrict the driver’s field of vision; 

### Vision	Field	Comparison Field of Vision directly forward is 44.80 degrees for a 95 th percentile seated male. Changing the door width to 32” from 28” reduces the field of vision to 40 degrees. Field of Vision directly forward is 43.60 degrees for a 5 th percentile seated female. Changing the door width to 32” from 28” reduces the field of vision to 38.6 degrees. 

### GENERAL	COMMENTS 

## - Wheelchairs are oriented transversally; 

### Impact	of	Proposed	Changes	/	MONTREAL **NOTES** 

## - Side door clear opening is 65’’; 

## - Wheelchairs cannot go towards cab end (restricted by 15’’ aisle width); 

## - Minimum aisle 33’’ except width is 33 at cab ends (see above); 

## - Tripods are located in the center of each vestibule, wheelchairs need to go around them in order to travel along the train set, the aisle width between a tripod and the side of the vehicle is about 39’’; 

## - Intercar passageways are provided at all non - cab ends, they offer 53’’ n ominal clear width between vehicles;
Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the
accompanying "Report of Management on Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.'s
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Relative to the Servicing of
Home Loan Receivables," that Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. maintained
effective internal control over the preparation of monthly Servicer's
Certificates relative to the servicing of home loan receivables owned by
Chevy Chase Home Loan Trusts Series 1996-1 and 1997-1 (collectively
referred to as the "Trusts" herein) as of September 30, 2003, based on
criteria established in "Internal Control-Integrated Framework" issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.'s management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over the preparation of
monthly Servicer's Certificates relative to the servicing of home loan
receivables owned by the Trusts.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants and, accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of
the internal control over the preparation of monthly Servicer's
Certificates relative to the servicing of home loan receivables owned by
the Trusts, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness
of the internal control, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatements
due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections
of any evaluation of the internal control over the preparation of monthly
Servicer's Certificates relative to the servicing of home loan receivables
owned by the Trusts to future periods are subject to the risk that the
internal control may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.
maintained effective internal control over the preparation of monthly
Servicer's Certificates relative to the servicing of home loan receivables
owned by the Trusts as of September 30, 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, based on criteria established in "Internal Control-
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of Chevy
Chase Bank, F.S.B. and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., U.S. Bank
National Association and MBIA Insurance Corporation, and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.



December 19, 2003               Ernst & Young LLP
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, E. Kevin Hrusovsky,certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofCaliper Life Sciences, Inc.;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
|   |   | Date: April 28, 2006                                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                |
|   |   | /s/ E. KEVIN HRUSOVSKY                                              |
|   |   | E. Kevin Hrusovsky                                                  |
|   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
# C_2004314EN.01001403.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 October 2004

in Case T-61/02: Commerzbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Procedure in default)

(2004/C 314/37)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-61/02: Commerzbank AG, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzky, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty — (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) (OJ 2003 L 15, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


DYNAMEX INC.
CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Years ending July 31,
                                                   ----------------------------------------
                                                     2000            1999           1998
                                                   ---------       ---------       --------

<S>                                                <C>             <C>             <C>
Net Income (loss)                                  $ (3,399)       $ (6,676)       $(1,618)
                                                   ========        ========        =======

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding           10,207          10,099          7,937

Common Share Equivalents Related to Options
    and Warrants
                                                   --------        --------        -------

Common Shares and Common Share Equivalents           10,207          10,099          7,937
                                                   ========        ========        =======

Common Stock Price used under Treasury Stock
    Method                                         $     --        $     --        $    --
                                                   ========        ========        =======

Net Income per Common Share:
    Basic                                          $  (0.33)       $  (0.66)       $ (0.20)
                                                   ========        ========        =======
    Diluted                                        $  (0.33)       $  (0.66)       $ (0.20)
                                                   ========        ========        =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

I, Dean G. Stamos, 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, Vie Financial Group, Inc.’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Vie Financial Group, Inc.

 

|          |              |   |  **         |                          |
|---------------|-------------------|--------|------------------|-------------------------------|
| *Date:*  | *August 14, 2003* |   | *By:* **    | */s/ DEAN G. STAMOS*          |
|          |              |   |             |                               |
|          |              |   | *Name:* **  | ***Dean G. Stamos.***         |
|          |              |   | *Title:* ** | ***Chief Executive Officer*** |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Vie Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by Vie Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T F R AN K E . VO T H, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D O N M I LLS, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35041 D. C . No . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 4 2 3 - HA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nc e rL . H a gge rty , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , G R A B E R , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F rank E . V oth, an O re go n st at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s s um m ary j ud gm enti n h i s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng const i tut i on al v io la tio n s r e g a r d in g h is h o u s in g a s s ig n m e n t a n d c o n d itio n s o f c o n f in e m e n t. W e 

# FI LED MA Y22 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35041 2 h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F. 3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en to n th e cl ai m s ag ai n st M i l l s , the pr i s on s upe r i nt e nde nt , be c aus e V oth f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m at eri al factas t o w h eth er M i l l s p erso n al l y p art i ci p at ed i n th e al l eg ed v i o l at i o n s, o rk n e w o f

th e a lle g e d v io la tio n s a n d f a ile d to a c t. See T

a ylo r v. L ist , 880 F . 2d 10 40 , 10 45 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha tV oth’ s c l a i m s f orde c l a r a t orya nd i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

w er e m oo tbecause V oth w as no l on ger hou se d i n the pri son w here the a l l e ge dl y unc ons t i tut i ona l e ve nt s oc c urr e d. Se e D i l le yv . G unn , 64 F . 3d 1365, 13 68 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( an i nm at e’ s transfe r f rom a pri son w hi l e hi s c l ai m s are pend i ng w i l l general l y m oo tany c l ai m s f or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

re l at i ng t o thatpri son). V oth’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40427 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ROBERTO MENDOZA

- GUTIERREZ , also known as Robert Cantu

- Mendoza , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 860

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Mendoza

- Gutierrez 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). Mendoza

- Gutierrez h a 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 December 1, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40427 Document: 00513780499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016No. 16

- 40427

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. Se e 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40427 Document: 00513780499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
4:0 -fiviEeREF Or A tour!

•

4Sf NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

January 17, 1968

Dear Dick:

I am in wholehearted agreement with the arrangements

I*

for establishment of a Reconnaissance Plannin coup as

suggested in your letter of December 8, 1967 4585-67).

I also concur with the terms of reference whic you attached

to that letter.

I believe that this Group can greatly strengthen our

procedures for coordinating planning . for the National Reconnaissance Program and will provide an important additional

channel for exchange of information and views regarding

planning studies between the interested and responsible

elements of the intelligence community.

I propose to proceed with the organization of this

Group on the basis of the membership representation you

have suggested. I understand from Mr. Bross that informal

discussions have been held with General Carter and

Dr. Steininger relative to the participation of the NSA

and the Office of the Special Assistant to the President

for Science and Technology, respectively. I have asked

Mr. Reber to serve as Chairman and to complete the necessary tasks related to organization as soon as possible,

with a view to holding an early meeting of the Group and

establishing an agenda for specific planning reviews of

most immediate current concern.

Alexander N. Flax

The Honorable Richard Helms

Director of Central Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D. C. 20505'

WORM COPY

TOP-SEGREF MUMS Mil ailellalle 10101111111111

eM easeurt seee.se sus use mew

Dell12571-68

w......1.-- mg,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State of Connecticut and

Cytec Industries, Inc.

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order 8114A

Modification No.2

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Cytec Industries,

Inc. ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and

Order 8114A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify

said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

1. All references to May 1, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are

hereby replaced with May 1,2010.

2. Any references to October 1st with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances

for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

4. All references to September 1,2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1, 2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order 8114A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall

comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of

the Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order 81l4A, as modified,

shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127

www.ct.gov/dep

An Equal Opportunity Employer
Cytec Industries, Inc. 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8114A

Modification No.2

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

C~ec IndUS~

SIgnature: _

Name: LAU'-( b. CST It-J (-f..f-J1-

Title: 1:>I\¥=c..:rpt2.- MArJvfAc:n)(2,,-{k t=bg-r;-- /";;vA l. NOS

Date: ~\-=D_q~ _

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

Gary~ ,d.

Director

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau of Air Management

Date
# C_2004239EN.01001501.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Action for annulment - Private creditor test - Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Rights of the defence - Statement of reasons)

(2004/C 239/30)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, established in Ilmenau (Germany), represented initially by S. Gerrit and C. Arhold and subsequently by C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Schott Glas, established in Mainz (Germany), represented by U. Soltész, lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/185/CE of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany) (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the intervener in the main action and the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by the intervener in the main action and the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

1

---
#### Venne, Respondent, vs. Venne, imp., Appellant.

For the appellant: *James E. Coleman,*attorney, and *William J. McCauley*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Leuch, Fichaux & Fellenz,*attorneys, and *John C. Fellenz, Jr.*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00099-CR

Robert CANO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 477928

Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 2, 2015.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice