alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 0 9

- 2190

_____________ SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

v. DEBORAH A., PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF C.C., A MINOR, Appellant On Appeal fro m the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No . 08

- cv - 0 2924 ) District Judge: Berle M. Schiller Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on Monday, March 21, 2011 Before: FUENTES , SMITH , AND VAN ANTWERPEN , Circui t Judges

.

(Opinion Filed: April 6, 2011 )

_____________________________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge : In this special education civil rights case, the parent Deborah A. filed suit against the Sch ool District of Philadelphia on behalf of her daughter Candiss C., alleging that the School District failed to offer Candiss C. a free appropriate education in compliance with2

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §
1400 et seq . Following a series of administrative and state court proceedings, Deborah A.’s various cases were consolidated in the District Court. There after , the District Court considered several cross motions, including a motion for remand to the Pen nsylvania Special Education Administrative Process for consideration of Deborah A.’s compensatory education claims existing prior to July 1, 2005

. After hearing the parties on the motions, the District Court concluded that the claims regarding events th at occurred before July 27, 2005 were barred by IDEA’s two

year statute of limitations. On appeal, the parties agree that our recent decision in S teven I. v. Central Bucks Sch. Dist. , 618 F.3d 411 (3d Cir. 2010), “decid[ed] the same legal issue presented here”

— that is, the applicability to Deborah A.’s claims of the shortened
statute of limitations established in the IDEA as amended in 2004

— and required the denial of her motion. (App’t Br. 2) In light of this concession , we will affirm the decision of t he District Court for substantially the reasons given in that decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            APR-24-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JAN-23-1999
<CASH>                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                249,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (57,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,783,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,975,000
<PP&E>                                       1,571,785
<DEPRECIATION>                               (977,988)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,644,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,339,000
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,407,000
<COMMON>                                     179,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (5,519,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,644,000
<SALES>                                      1,318,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,318,000
<CGS>                                        1,156,949
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,024,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (124,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           160,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,742,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,742,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,742,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.12)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
     13a-15(f)
 (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    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
 (d)
    
    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; and
  (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.
  William S. Daugherty
Oana CRASI v. Larry Steven CROW

NO. 2018-CJ-0278

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Tammy Roy COFIELD v. STATE

CR-15-1266

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1994
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        49,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (65,249)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
##### 



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 Veramark Technologies, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
David G. Mazzella, Chief Executive 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:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
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. /s/David G. MazzellaDavid G. MazzellaPresident, Chief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2004
 24
---

EXHIBIT 99.7

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Blaiklock, Chief Financial Officer of Primero Mining
Corp. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                 

| | By:    | /s/ David Blaiklock    
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | David Blaiklock        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | April 2, 2012          

---
Sidney GOODREAUX v. LAKEWOOD COUNTRY CLUB a/k/a Lakewood CDD, LLC, New Orleans Fire Fighters Pension Fond Investments a/k/a New Orleans Fire Fighters' Pension and Relief Funds, Lakewood Restoration Partners, Ltd., a Louisiana Limited Liability Partnership a/k/a Devonshire Properties, LLC and Henry Jerome Maumus, III

NO. 2017-CC-2043

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Fred Lee WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-443

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report of TPC Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles W. Shaver, President and Chief Executive 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: September 17, 2010 |  | /s/ Charles W. Shaver                
|                         |  | Charles W. Shaver                    
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov 

Content Last Updated: 07/16/2010 

 

Search Help More Search Options 

Printable Version 

Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer 

Materials in Support of Stakeholder Negotiations 

This page presents analytical results and tools provided to key stakeholders whom 

are negotiating potential energy conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers. 

Some of the following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download

Adobe Reader 

Analytical Results 

z Analytical Results provided on April 15, 2010 (PDF 232 KB) 

z Analytical Results provided on May 4, 2010 (PDF 235 KB) 

z Analytical Results provided on May 5, 2010 (PDF 36 KB) 

z Analytical Results provided on May 20, 2010 (PDF 348 KB) 

Analytical Tools 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Spreadsheets

z Product Class 3 (Excel 5.4 MB) 

z Product Class 5 (Excel 5.4 MB) 

z Product Class 7 (Excel 5.1 MB) 

z Product Class 9 (Excel 4.5 MB) 

z Product Class 10 (Excel 4.5 MB) 

z Product Class 11 (Excel 3.4 MB) 

z Product Class 18 (Excel 3.4 MB) 

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet

z Compact Refrigerators (Excel 1.2 MB) 

z Compact Refrigerator-Freezers (Excel 1.9 MB) 

z Freezers (Excel 1.8 MB) 

z Freezers, UAF=1 (Excel 1.8 MB) 

z Refrigerator-Freezers (Excel 3.7 MB) 

z Refrigerator-Freezers, UAF=1 (Excel 3.6 MB) 

Contact Information 

Subid Wagley

Project Manager 

202-287-1414 

Printable Version 

EERE Information Center 

Programs and Offices 

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, an... Page 1 of 1

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/refrigerators_supp... 7/30/2010
Exhibit 23.1


Graphic




Fahn Kanne &Co.


Head Office


Levinstein Tower


23 Menachem Begin Road


Tel-Aviv 66184, ISRAEL


P O.B. 36172, 61361

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We have issued our report dated Apt il 14, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Pimi Agro Cleantech, Inc. (which report expressed an unqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about Pimi Agro Cleantech, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern) contained in the Registration Statement and Prospectus to be filed on April 14, 2010. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption "Experts".











Certitled Public Accountants (Isr..)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6541]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,518]


Sunbury Textile Mills, Sunbury, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 9, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers at Sunbury Textile Mills, Sunbury, 
Pennsylvania.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6541 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 619 

Expressing support for July to be designated as ‘‘Disability Pride Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Ms. MCCOLLUM (for herself, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Ms. ADAMS, 

Mr. CALVERT, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SMITH

of Washington, Mr. CARSON, Ms. SCANLON, Mr. MOULTON, Ms. NORTON, Ms. TITUS, Ms. ROSS, and Mr. ALLRED) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for July to be designated as ‘‘Disability 

Pride Month’’. 

Whereas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 61,000,000 American adults have a disability 

that impacts major life activities; 

Whereas the United States Census Bureau reports that over 

3,000,000 children have disabilities; 

Whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 

12101 et seq.) was signed into law on July 26, 1990; 

Whereas people with a disability remain at an increased risk 

of experiencing discrimination, isolation, and inequities; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 619 IH 

Whereas people with disabilities are vital, and make meaningful contributions in the American arts, science, 

healthcare, technology, sports, education, law, and many 

more sectors; and 

Whereas ‘‘Disability Pride Month’’ is celebrated in July by 

Americans across the country: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses the support for July to be des3 ignated as ‘‘Disability Pride Month’’; and 

4 (2) calls on the people of the United States, in5 terest groups, and affected people to— 

6 (A) to observe Disability Pride Month with 

7 appropriate celebrations and activities; and 

8 (B) take an active role in the prevention of 

9 exclusion of and discrimination against people 

10 with disabilities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX-10.2






ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT




THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Assignment”) is
made and entered into as of December 19, 2007, by and between TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company (“Assignor”), and G&E HEALTHCARE REIT COUNTY LINE ROAD,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), with reference to the following
Recitals:



R E C I T A L S




A. Assignor is the “Purchaser” under that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated November
29, 2007, by and between BRCP Highlands Ranch, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
Assignor (the “Purchase Agreement”), wherein Assignor agreed to purchase that certain
improved real property commonly known as Highlands Ranch Healthcare Plaza, located at 200 & 206
West County Line Road, Highlands Ranch, County of Douglas, Colorado, as more particularly described
in the Purchase Agreement, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement.



B. Assignor desires to assign and transfer to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume from
Assignor, all of Assignor’s right, title, claim and interest in, to and under the Purchase
Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals (which are incorporated herein by
this reference) and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, Assignor and Assignee hereby agree as follows:



A G R E E M E N T




1. Assignment; Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns and transfers to Assignee all of
Assignor’s right, title, claim and interest as “Purchaser” and otherwise in, to and under the
Purchase Agreement. By executing this Assignment, Assignee hereby accepts such assignment and
expressly agrees to assume and be bound by all of the provisions of the Purchase Agreement from and
after the date hereof.



2. Successors and Assigns. This Assignment shall inure to the benefit of, and be
binding upon, the successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the
parties hereto.



3. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in any number of counterparts with
the same effect as if all of the parties had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be
construed together and shall constitute one agreement.



[Signatures on next page]





1






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Assignment to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ASSIGNOR:	 	TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC,	 	 
	 	 	a Virginia limited liability company
	
 
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jeff Hanson

Name:

Title:
	 	

Jeff Hanson

Chief Investment Officer
	ASSIGNEE:	 	G&E HEALTHCARE REIT COUNTY LINE ROAD, LLC,
	 	 	a Delaware limited liability company
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Shannon K S Johnson
	
 
	 	 	 	Name:

Title:
	 	Shannon K S Johnson

Chief Financial Officer







2
Neurological Effe

Neurological Effe

of Atrazine Atrazine

John 

Senior Scientist, Healt

Office of Pe

Liccion
Presentation Object

Presentation Object

z Discuss new studies publishe

2003 on neurological effecatrazine.

z Agency assessment of these 
New In Vivo Studies New In Vivo Studies

z Rodriguez et al. (2005) - Rat brain monoamine 

5HT, NE)– hypothalamic & extrahypothalamic redietary exposure to ATR (0,5,10 mg/kg/day). Loactivity – dAMP. DAergic & non-DAergic neurons

z Coban & Filipov(2007) – Mouse DAergic systems 

SNpc/striatum and VTA. 14 day exposure (gava(0,5,25,125,150 mg/kg/day). DA/metab & DAer

z Guisi et al. (2006) – Mouse Somatostatinergic sy

or 100 μg/kg/d) in DW to dams on GD14-PND21removed. F1 offspring continued Tx. Sacrifice PN

z Belloni et al. (2007) – Neurobehavioral developm

mouse. Dams given ATR in DW (same doses as GD14-PND21. Neurobehavioral measurements o
Overall Assessmen

Overall Assessmen

z Monoamine Studies

 Broad effects on brain monomines – 

5-HT.

 Limited evidence of behavioral respo

decrease number of neurons (DA and 

 Findings are inconclusive – limitation

studies.
Overall Assessmen

Overall Assessmen

z Monoamine Studies (continue

 Limitations: small sample size; 

response; lack of corroborative 

 No link between atrazine and h

diseases including Parkinson’s 
Overall Assessmen

Overall Assessmen

z Brain Somatostatinergic System

 Reported altered expression of specif

receptor subtypes.

 Findings are inconclusive – serious lim

study that preclude use in risk assess

 Limitations: small sample size; lack o

evidence; discrepancies between texpoor quality of staining results and nof neuronal degeneration. 
Overall Assessmen

Overall Assessmen

z Neurobehavioral Development

 Reported alterations in righting and gra

and ultrasound vocalizations.

 Findings are inconclusive – serious limit

study that limit use in risk assessment.

 Limitations: inappropriate statistical an

discrepancies in pup totals; no dose resspectrographic analyses limited; no suphypotheses; lack of objective behavioraneuropathology. 
Conclusion Conclusion

z Neurotoxicity studies - incoz Effects on HPA/HPG axis o

neuroendocrine function - sensitive effects.
Veronica Buchanon RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1739

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 21, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.