alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,636
<PP&E>                                          42,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,556
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,195
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,884
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 33-60145, 33-61275, 33-61277 and 333-31280)
of our report dated February11, 2005, relating to the financial statements
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BIW Limited for
the year ended December 31, 2004.




/s/ Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
-------------------------------------------------
Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.

March 30, 2005
Shelton, Connecticut
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATION  I, the Chief Financial Officer of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the registrant), certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;  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; and  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:November 14, 2006/s/ Michael E. HaylonName:Michael E. HaylonTitle:Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Globecomm Systems Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,876
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                       662
<INVENTORY>                                     12,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,304
<PP&E>                                         120,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,296
<SALES>                                         26,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,444
<CGS>                                           21,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   218
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       415
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,793)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)




</TABLE>
*This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 4, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, No. 10-3244(D.C. Nos. 2:03-CR-20051-JWL-DJW1 and 2:08-CV-02295-JWL) (D. Kan.) v. CARLOS PORTILLO-QUEZADA, a/k/a Luis Quezada, Defendant–Appellant.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before O’BRIEN , McKAY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
Defendant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Defendant was convicted on multiple counts relating to a drug-distribution conspiracy, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. See United States v. Portillo-Quezada , 469 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 2006). In his habeas petition, Defendant raised ten claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district-2- court concluded Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of these claims and accordingly dismissed the petition. After carefully reviewing Defendant’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). As the district court correctly concluded, none of Defendant’s claims, considered either individually or cumulatively, reflected constitutionally deficient or prejudicial performance by trial counsel. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). Therefore, for substantially the same reasons explained by the district court, we DENYthe application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
<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


         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 21, 2003 (the "Form
10-Q") of LDM Technologies, Inc. (the "Issuer").

         I, Gary E. Borushko, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify
that:

         (i)      The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to LDM Technologies, Inc. and will be
retained by LDM Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: January 27, 2004



                                             By:  /s/ G.E. Borushko
                                                --------------------------------
                                                      Gary E. Borushko
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                      LDM Technologies, Inc.






                                       25
#### Gabriel Ralph REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15462.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Gabriel Ralph Reyes, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Ralph Reyes, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed the excessive force claims arising from the use of pepper spray and another chemical agent against inmates near Reyes’s cell, because Reyes failed to allege that defendants acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” *See Clement v. Gomez,*298 F.3d 898, 903-04 (9th Cir.2002).

However, Reyes has stated a colorable medical deliberate indifference claim against defendants Harkins, Navarro, and Swift. Reyes sufficiently alleged in his complaint that these defendants were aware of both the potentially harmful effects of pepper spray generally and of the specific symptoms suffered by Reyes in the immediate aftermath of his exposure, and that they refused to provide Reyes *127with any means through which to mitigate such harmful effects. *See id.*at 904 (deliberate indifference claim may lie where prison officials “were aware of the harmful effects of the pepper spray and of the inadequacy of their ventilation methods and yet purposefully refused to provide showers, medical care, or combative instructions or to develop an adequate policy to address obvious risks”). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on Reyes’s deliberate indifference claim against defendants Harkins, Navarro, and Swift.

Reyes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 23.2

INFORMATION CONCERNING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a
security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement.

Caremark
Rx, Inc ("Caremark") dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as its independent auditors, effective April 9, 2002. For additional information, see Caremark's Current
Report on Form 8-K dated April 9, 2002. Andersen was subsequently barred from practicing before the Securities and Exchange Commission and is, therefore, unable to consent to
incorporation by reference into Caremark's registration statements listed below (the "Registration Statements") of Andersen's audit report with respect to Caremark's consolidated financial statements
as of December 31, 2001, and for the two years in the period then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits Caremark to file this Annual Report on
Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements, without a written consent from Andersen.

As
a result, with respect to transactions in Caremark securities pursuant to the Registration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report on
Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statement of a
material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such
Registration Statement would be unable to assert a claim against Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.

Registration
Statements:



---



---



QuickLinks
#### Allison Rosen, Appellant, v Mark Weinger et al., Defendants, and Gerald Zupnick, Respondent.

— In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berman, J.), entered August 3, 1984, which granted defendant Zupnick’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him on the ground that jurisdiction had not been obtained, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to strike defendant Zupnick’s affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for a traverse hearing.

Order affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff is entitled to use the so-called "nail and mail” provisions of CPLR 308 (4) only if personal service cannot be effected under subdivisions (1) and (2) thereof by the use of "due diligence”. Due diligence was not established here where the process server, in an affidavit in opposition to appellant’s motion and in support of the cross motion, stated only that he was unable to serve defendant Zupnick "in hand” at his place of business on three occasions, but did not explain why he was unable to leave the summons and complaint with a person of suitable age and discretion on any of those occasions, or why he never attempted to serve Zupnick at his home. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Special Term properly determined that due diligence had not been established, and that jurisdiction over Zupnick had not been obtained *(see, e.g., Barnes v City of New York,*70 AD2d 580, *affd*51 NY2d 906; *Reed v Domenech,*90 AD2d 844). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Anthony Minardo, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Frank Min ardo, et al., Appellants, v Estate of John Mussio et al., Defendants, and Bay Ridge Hospital, *702Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff Anthony Minardo appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and amended brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated June 24, 1983, as, upon a motion for judgment during trial, is in favor of defendant Bay Ridge Hospital and against him.

Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly granted judgment during trial in favor of defendant Bay Ridge Hospital *(see,*CPLR 4401). On appeal, it is argued that the jury could have found the hospital liable for the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff because of the failure of the hospital staff to contact a pediatrician at some point after 2:30 p.m. on November 2, 1970, when the infant’s condition allegedly took a turn for the worse. Although a codefendant pediatrician testified that he should have been called at that time, he did not testify that the failure to do so was a departure from accepted medical practice. Even assuming that such failure was a departure from accepted medical practice, the record is devoid of proof that if a pediatrician had been notified of the change in the infant’s condition, curative steps could have in fact been taken. We find, furthermore, that even assuming such curative measures would in fact have been taken at that point, there is no proof that any such measures would have prevented or minimized the injuries ultimately suffered by the infant plaintiff. Thus, there was a failure of proof on the element of causation with respect to the hospital’s allegedly negligent omission, and without such proof, there was failure to establish a prima facie case *(see, Weiss v Zuckerman,*114 AD2d 895; *Mertsaris v 73rd Corp.,*105 AD2d 67; *Kinch v Adams,*46 AD2d 467, *affd*38 NY2d 792). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15907]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 38391, July 
20, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, July 22, 
2021 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 
22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: July 21, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15907 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### LA MARCHE, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate. Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Flora La Marche, as administratrix, etc., against the International Paper Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

KELLOGG, J.,

dissents, upon the ground that there was question of fact for the jury.
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CuraGen Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy M. Shannon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Sean A. Cassidy, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                              |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.
|                   |  |     |  |                              |  | Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                      
|                   |  |     |  |                              |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                         
|                   |  |     |  |                              |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)               
|                   |  |    
|Dated: May 7, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Sean A. Cassidy         
|                   |  |     |  |                              |  | Sean A. Cassidy                                               
|                   |  |     |  |                              |  | Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer                    
|                   |  |     |  |                              |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)