alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 14, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations We st Building Ground Floor, Room W 1 2 - 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Wa shington, DC 20590 To Whom It May Concern: I hereby respectfully request authorization to operate a multi - rotor aircraft for commercial purposes (e.g. – real estate videography or similar activities). I intend to form a small business for this purpose, and will operate the unmanned vehicle per FAA regulations, remaining clear of all unauthorized airspace, as noted on currently available Sectionals and other FAA - provided charts. As a licensed private pilot since 1997 , with instrument rating, I understand and will respect the limitations that the l aw and common sense would place upon such an operation, and will endeavor to remain abreast of changes to the airspace, including SUA’s, MOA’s, and TFR’s as required. I am also aware that further rulemaking is likely in the future, and will comply with th ese regulations as such changes are made. The multi - rotor vehicle I intend to use initially for this operation is pre - programmed to remain below 400 ft AGL, and incorporates geo -fencing capabilities to prevent the vehicle leaving my line of sight. Other d etails regarding this vehicle, or any others I may employ in the future for this purpose will be provided upon request. Please advise if there is any other information I can provide to make this process a smooth one for your department. Thank you in advanc e for considering my request, and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, David C. Kilmer 8 - 6 Heather Hts Reading, PA 19606 (c) 484 - 431 -4700
EXHIBIT 32.2

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                            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 (the "Report") of China
Biopharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, HUANG Chentai, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.


Date:  May 15, 2007                          By: /s/ HUANG Chentai
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                     HUANG Chentai
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

        SUBSIDIARIES OF TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS CORP. AS OF 03/30/00

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Subsidiary                                 Date of Incorporation             Country
----------                                 ---------------------             -------

<S>                                        <C>                               <C>
Tumbleweed Communications Ltd.                     02/23/99                  U.K.

Tumbleweed Communications GmbH                     05/21/99                  Germany

Tumbleweed Communications S.A.                     05/25/99                  France

Tumbleweed Communications Aktiebolag (AB)          03/14/00                  Sweden

Tumbleweed Communications BV                       03/23/00                  Netherlands

Tumbleweed Communications Pty. Ltd.                01/20/00                  Australia

Tumbleweed Communications K.K.                     10/27/98                  Japan

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,097-01

EX PARTE ROSS RICHARDSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11-CR-040-1 IN THE 349 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HOUSTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault against a public servant and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Richardson v. State, No. 12-13-00131-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler, July

31, 2014)(not designated for publication).

Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to
2

file a motion for probation. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall
3

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: December 9, 2015

Do not publish
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on From 10-KSB of Computerized
Thermal Imaging, Inc. (the "Company") for the Year Ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard V. Secord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of 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/ Richard Secord
------------------

Richard Secord
Acting Chief Financial Officer
October 27, 2005

      This certification accompanies the Amendment pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it
staff upon request.
# C_2015375EN.01000101.xml

| 12.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7752 — ACE/Chubb)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 375/01)

On 6 November 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7752. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7752. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-944V

Filed: November 10, 2016

Not to be Published

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

KRISTY M. SUH and *

DANNY PASAWONGSE, on *

behalf of their minor daughter IYP, *

* 

Petitioners, * Petitioners’ Motion for a 

* Decision Dismissing the Petition;

v. * Insufficient Proof of Causation; Vaccine 

* Act Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DECISION 

On August 4, 2016, Petitioners filed a Petition for Vaccine Compensation in the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”),1alleging that various vaccinations 

injured IYP. The information in the record, however, does not show entitlement to an award 

under the Program.

On November 10, 2016, Petitioners moved for a decision dismissing their petition, 

acknowledging that they will be unable to prove they are entitled to compensation in the 

Program.

To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioners must prove either 1) that IYP

suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding 

to one of IYP’s vaccinations, or 2) that IYP suffered an injury that was actually caused by a 

vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not 

uncover any evidence that IYP suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a 

 

1 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 

Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, 

individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. 
medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that IYP’s alleged injury 

was vaccine-caused.

Under the Act, petitioners may not be given a Program award based solely on the 

petitioners’ claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by 

the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, because there are 

insufficient medical records supporting Petitioners’ claim, a medical opinion must be offered in 

support. Petitioners, however, have offered no such opinion.

Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that Petitioners have failed to 

demonstrate either that IYP suffered a “Table Injury” or that IYP’s injuries were “actually 

caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall 

enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
INTELIDATA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
RESTON, VIRGINIA

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-16115,  No. 333-16117,  No. 333-16121,  No. 333-76631,  and No. 333-93227 of
InteliData Technologies Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated February 16,
2000,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of  InteliData  Technologies
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 29, 2000
June Term, 1860.

#### Lockwood vs. Stewart and others.

A judgment will not be reversed, on account of the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, if there was evidence enough to support the verdict, although it may appear to this court that the preponderance of the proof was against it.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

This was an action to recover damages for a breach of warranty as to the quality and condition of a carpet purchased by the plaintiff of the defendants. Verdict for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence, overruled, the defendants excepting, and judgment upon the verdict.

*J.*Ladue, for appellants.

*Waldo, Ody & Van,*for respondent.

November 19.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

The point in controversy in this case was, whether the carpet mentioned in the pleadings was imperfect and injured at the time of the delivery thereof to the respondent, and was not free from damage or defects of every kind, as the appellants represented and warranted the carpet should be, when it was purchased, and what damages the respondent had sustained in consequence. The nature of the defects in the carpet, and the manner in which they were covered up, certainly authorized the jury in finding that those defects and injuries must have existed in the carpet before it came to the possession of the respondent, and they so declared by their verdict. The questions submitted to the jury were matters of fact, and it was the province of the jury to weigh and determine the effect of the testimony. It is unnecessary for us to declare what conclusions we should have drawn from the evidence, and it is sufficient to say that it clearly supports the verdict, even if we concede that the weight of the evidence was against the finding. The only exception taken was to the ruling of the circuit court, denying the application for a new trial, and we are unable to say that the motion for a new trial was not properly denied.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and Combustion Engineering ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and Order No. 8154A Modification NO.2

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Combustion Engineering ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 8154A and all previous modifications thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modifY said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: I. 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 ofSubsections 22a-174-22(d)(I) through 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are hereby replaced with May I, 2010. 2. Any references to October 151 with respect to the date by which the Respondent 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 ofnon-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31, 2010. 4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 5. No laterthan May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 8154A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-174-22(d)(I) and 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations. 6. All otherterms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and OrderNo. 8154A, as modified, shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street

_ Hanford. CT 06106-5127 www.cLgov/dcp An Equal OpporlUnify Emplo.ver

## . 

# -

CombustionEngineering 2 Trading Agreementand OrderNo. 8154A Modification No.2 The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice.
Combustion Engineering Signature:

# M~ Name: 

# It. (.{.../**f~** 

# K.,,, 4<-«'1,....1-( , Title: 

# tJI

## rz-.e.--~ 

# r Date: 

## '-t

# II

# f/(]')

Issued as a modification ofa Trading Agreement and Order.

# ~df..-- Director Engineering & Enforcement Division Bureau ofAir Management Date
# C_2015213EN.01000201.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/2

---

Method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting

(2015/C 213/02)

On 13 May 2015, the General Court, considering the forthcoming entry into force on 1 July 2015 of the Rules of Procedure of 4 March 2015, decided that, with effect from 1 July 2015, where a Judge is prevented from acting in the circumstances referred to in Article 17(2) and Article 24(2) respectively of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the General Court is to designate the Judge replacing the Judge prevented from acting following the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, with the exception of the Vice-President and the Presidents of Chambers. However, in order to ensure an even spread of the workload, the President of the General Court may derogate from that order.

Having regard to any urgency and to special circumstances, the President of the General Court may designate himself to replace the Judge who is prevented from acting.

---
**Exhibit 24.3**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E.Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and eachof them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitutionand resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on hisbehalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell CrowCompany, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, and to sign anyor all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities andExchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of themwith or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each andevery act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about thepremises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do inperson, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-factor their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done byvirtue hereof.

 

 
|   | /s/  | CURTIS  F. FEENY |   |
|--------|-----------|------------------|--------|
|   |      | Curtis  F. Feeny |   |

 

----
##### 



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 of DDi Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Gisch,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
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 result of operations of the Company. Date: August 13, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Joseph GischJoseph Gisch
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016017EN.01000301.xml

| 19.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 January 2016

(2016/C 17/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0892 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4633 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76263 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3411 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0946 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6878 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,037 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,42 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4606 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5365 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3102 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5810 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5800 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4939 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6862 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5674 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 317,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,2882 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1658 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6635 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 163,45 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7887 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,036 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,1920 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,516 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3929 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,8703 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,7266 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0892

JPY

Japanese yen

127,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4633

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76263

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3411

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0946

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6878

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,037

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,42

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4606

RON

Romanian leu

4,5365

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3102

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5810

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5800

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4939

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6862

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5674

KRW

South Korean won

1 317,44

ZAR

South African rand

18,2882

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1658

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6635

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 163,45

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7887

PHP

Philippine peso

52,036

RUB

Russian rouble

86,1920

THB

Thai baht

39,516

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3929

MXN

Mexican peso

19,8703

INR

Indian rupee

73,7266

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---