alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Index of Worksheets

# Fires & Losses Trends 2005-2014

# Fires by Gen Property Type 2014

# Res Bldg Fire & Loss '05-'14

# Nonres Bldg Fire & Loss '05-'14

# Vehicle Fire & Loss '05-'14

# Out-Other Fire & Loss '05-'14

# Res Bldg Fire Causes 2014

# Nonres Bldg Fire Causes 2014

# Vehicle Fire Causes 2014

# Outside Fire Causes 2014

# Other Fire Causes 2014

# Sheet12
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6540 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2010 

Received 

DECEMBER 22, 2010 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract 

for the KC–X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to 

consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

may possess. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6540 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Level Playing 

3 Field Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVAN5 TAGE IN EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR KC–X 

6 AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER UNFAIR COMPETI8 TIVE ADVANTAGE.—In awarding a contract for the KC– 

9 X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any successor to 

10 that program), the Secretary of Defense shall, in evalu11 ating any offers submitted to the Department of Defense 

12 in response to a solicitation for offers for such program, 

13 consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror 

14 may possess. 

15 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after submis16 sion of offers in response to any such solicitation, the Sec17 retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 

18 committees a report on any unfair competitive advantage 

19 that any offeror may possess. 

20 (c) REQUIREMENT TO TAKE FINDINGS INTO AC21 COUNT IN AWARD OF CONTRACT.—In awarding a contract 

22 for the KC–X aerial refueling aircraft program (or any 

23 successor to that program), the Secretary of Defense shall 

24 take into account the findings of the report submitted 

25 under subsection (b). 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6540 RFS

1 (d) UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.—In this sec2 tion, the term ‘‘unfair competitive advantage’’, with re3 spect to an offer for a contract, means a situation in which 

4 the cost of development, production, or manufacturing is 

5 not fully borne by the offeror for such contract. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT 

ASSOCIATION, 

Plaintiff, : 

- against- No. 2007 Civ. 5710 (RJH) 

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF HEALTH, 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, and NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

Thomas R. Frieden, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

In His Official Capacity as Commissioner 

of the New York City Department of Health 

and Mental Hygiene, 

Defendants. 

Plaintiff the New York State Restaurant Association having commenced this action by the filing 

of a Complaint and issuance of a Summons on June 15, 2007, against Defendants, New York City Board 

of Health, New York City. Department ofHealth and Mental Hygiene and Thomas Frieden, 

Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and 

Plaintiff having moved by Order To Show Cause for (1) declaratory relief on Count One of the 

Complaint, seeking judgment that New York City Health Code Section 81.50 ("Regulation 8 1.50") is 

preempted by the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990, 21 U.S.C. ~~ 343, 343-a, and 

regulations promulgated thereunder by the Food and Drug Administration, and (2) for a preliminary 

injunction on Count Two of the Complaint, and 

Twenty (20) days having now passed since the filing of the Complaint, now therefore, 

Upon the Complaint, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support Of Plaintiff s Motion For 

Declaratory Relief And A Preliminary Injunction, filed June 15, 2007, Plaintiffs Local Rule 56.1 

Statement, dated July 18, 2007, and all prior papers and proceedings had herein, Plaintiff hereby gives 

notice that it will move this Court before the Honorable Richard J. Holwell in Courtroom 17B at the 

United States District Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New ·York, New York, on the 25th day of July, 2007 

Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 39 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
5;00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an order granting summary judgment in its 

favor on Count One of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Dated: New York, New York 

July 18, 2007 

RespectfUlly submitted, 

Amold & Porter LLP 

Peter L. Ziri~roth 

Kent A. Yalowitz 

Nancy G. Milburn 

399 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

(212)715-1000 

Attorneysfov PlaintifJI 

New York State Restaurant Association 

To: MichaelA. Cardozo, Esq. 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 

100 Church Street 

New York, NY 10007 

Attn: Mark W. Muschenheim, Esq. 

Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 39 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 3
OF SERVICE 

I, Anthony D. Boccanfuso, the undersigned attorney at law duly admitted to 

practice in the State of New York, respectfully show that on the 18'" day of July 2007, the 

annexed NOTICE OF RiIOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT was 

served by hand upon: 

Mark W. Muschenheim 

Assistant Corporation Counsel 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 

100 Church Street 

New York, New York 10007 

Anthony D. Boccanfuso 

Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 39 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
 
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74614, 2-96535, 2-87595 and 33-42053) and in the
Prospectuses constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
33-74464 and 33-46186) of Staodyn, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 1998
appearing on Page F-2 of this Form 10-KSB.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Boulder, Colorado
February 25, 1998
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




The undersigned, Leada Tak Tai Li, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA PRECISION STEEL, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 16th day of May, 2011.




/s/ Leada Tak Tai LiLeada Tak Tai LiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Precision Steel, Inc. and will be retained by China Precision Steel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### In the Matter of Benjamin Espinal, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Klein, J.), entered October 31, 1988 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

This matter was remitted to Supreme Court for supplementation of the record on the issue of bad faith regarding the failure to preserve a videotape recording of a misbehavior incident for which petitioner was disciplined (149 AD2d 904). Respondent has submitted an affidavit by the Hearing Officer who conducted petitioner’s hearing, in which he avers that "[b]ecause of the expense involved * * * videotapes are routinely reused every seven days unless there is some reason to preserve them”. As disciplinary proceedings are generally commenced within seven days of the triggering incident *(see, 7*NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]), the tapes will normally be available for review at the hearing. Here, however, the hearing, though timely commenced, was adjourned and when petitioner subsequently requested that the tape be reviewed, the Hearing Officer, upon checking, determined that the tape had not been preserved. The Hearing Officer goes on to state, "I have no reason to doubt that [the videotape] was reused and the incident erased.” He further represents that although tapes are kept for more than seven days when an "unusual incident report” is filed and when the incident is "very serious”, the misconduct ascribed to petitioner was not considered so egregious as to warrant preservation of the tape. Given this explanation, we are satisfied that the subject videotape was not destroyed in bad faith but rather as the result of a reasonable policy of tape reuse.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             405
<SECURITIES>                                        74
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,345
<INVENTORY>                                     34,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,652
<PP&E>                                         197,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,804
<BONDS>                                        109,194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,652
<OTHER-SE>                                     167,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   332,536
<SALES>                                        339,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               339,381
<CGS>                                          291,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   668
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,086
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,127
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,318)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,809
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
        

</TABLE>
Please email this form to the National Fire Academy (NFA) 

Managing Officer Program Administrator at tina.crevier@fema.dhs.gov.

Managing Officer Program 

Course Completion Checklist and 

Certificate Information Sheet

Name/rank: ___________________________________________________________________

Mailing address:

City State ZIP

Email address: ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Phone number: 

Chief of department:

Department: 

Department address: 

City State ZIP 

You must complete and attach certificates for the following items:

Course type Course title Date 

completed

Core course 

requirements

“Applications of Community Risk Reduction” (R0385)

“Applications of Leadership in the Culture of Safety” (R0388)

“Training and Professional Development Challenges for Fire and Emergency 

Services Leaders” (R0389)

“Analytical Tools for Decision-Making” (R0387)

Corequisite 

courses 

Must add up 

to at least 

6 days of 

coursework

“Leadership in Supervision” (R/N0645) (6-Day)

“Leadership in Supervision: Creating Environments for Professional Growth” 

(F/W0646) (dated May 2016 or later) (2-Day)

“Leadership in Supervision: Perspectives in Thinking” (F/W0647) (2-Day)

“Leadership in Supervision: Frameworks to Success” (F/W0648) (2-Day)

“Leadership I for Fire and EMS: Strategies for Company Success” 

(F/W/D/H/O0803) (2-Day)

“Leadership II for Fire and EMS: Strategies for Personal Success” 

(F/W/D/H/O0804) (2-Day)

“Leadership III for Fire and EMS: Strategies for Supervisory Success” 

(F/W/D/H/O0805) (2-Day)

“Shaping the Future” (F/W/O0602) (2-Day)
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-165418, 333-157685, 333-149203, 333-145074, 333-139555, 333-125490, 333-121584, 333-121583, 333-107238 and Form F-3 No. 333-165472) of Sanofi, of our reports dated
March 5, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sanofi and its subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sanofi and its subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Ernst & Young Audit

Represented by Christian Chiarasini and Jacques Pierres



|                     |  |                
|-------------------- |  | ---------------
|Christian Chiarasini |  | Jacques Pierres

Paris-La Défense, France

March 5, 2012
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 15-9 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### GRAY v. BAKER et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

June 18, 1894.)

Action ‘by Leonora S. Gray against William T. Baker and another.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See ID N. Y. Supp. 940; 23 N. Y. Supp. 387.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00320

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R.M ., J.Y.M., D.M.M., A ND D.N.M., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CW

- 0026

- 15

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, h aving considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant, although he is exempt from payment du e to his inability to pay costs. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 4, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         783,322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  640,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (52,261)
<INVENTORY>                                    436,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,868,451
<PP&E>                                         302,818
<DEPRECIATION>                               (151,024)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,020,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          435,267
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,124
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,576,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,020,395
<SALES>                                      4,424,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,446,352
<CGS>                                        1,887,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,887,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,570,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                988,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                   282,320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            705,818
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   705,818
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Daniel Rodriguez v. Plaza Del Sol Apartments

Appellate case number: 01-14-00316-CV

Trial court case number: 1045346

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On April 22, 2014, appellant, Daniel Rodriguez, filed an affidavit of indigence in 

the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a)(2)(A). The county clerk has filed a clerk’s 

record on indigence containing the trial court’s May 1, 2014 order sustaining a contest to 

appellant’s affidavit of indigence. See id. 20.1(e)(1), (i)(4). Appellant did not file a 

motion in this Court seeking review of the trial court’s order within 10 days of the order. 

See id. 20.1(j)(1), (2). Therefore, the required filing fee is due.

Appellant is ORDERED to pay the $195 filing fee to this Court no later than 10 

days from the date of this order, or the Court may dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

5, 42.3. 

It is further ORDERED that, no later than 30 days from the date of this order, 

appellant file with this Court proof that he has paid or made arrangements to pay for the 

preparation of the clerk’s record, or the appeal may be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

34.5(a), 35.3(a)(2), 37.3(b).

Finally, on July 8, 2014, appellant filed a “Motion to Extend Time to File 

Appellant’s Brief.” Contrary to appellant’s request, however, no deadline for the filing of 

appellant’s brief has been set, because the complete appellate record has not yet been 

filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s motion as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 29, 2014
**Exhibit 3.7**

 

**AMENDMENT FOUR**

**TO**

**SIXTH AMENDED AND RESTATEDCERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF METROPCS, INC.**

**a Delaware Corporation**

 

(Amending the Amended and Restated Certificate of Designations, Preferences 

and Rights for Series D Convertible Preferred Stock ofMetroPCS, Inc.) ****

 

**(Pursuant to Sections 242, 141(f)and 228 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”))**

 

The undersigned, Roger D. Linquist, hereby certifies that, 

 

1. He isthe duly elected and acting President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of MetroPCS, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 

 

2. The original Certificate of Incorporation of the Company was filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the “Secretary ofState”) on June 24, 1994 under the name of General Wireless, Inc. pursuant to the DGCL. The Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company (the “Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate ofIncorporation”) was originally filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on November 20, 2000 pursuant to the DGCL. 

 

3. The directors and the stockholders of the Company, in accordance with Sections 242, 141(f) and 228 of the DGCL, have duly adopted and approved this Amendment Four toSixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (this “Amendment Four”). 

 

4. Pursuant to this Amendment Four, the Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended as follows: 

 

A. Section 1 of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights for Series D Convertible Preferred Stock (the“Certificate of Designations”) is hereby amended to delete the second sentence thereof and add language at the end of Section 1 as follows: 

 

“The number of shares constituting such series shall be 4,000,000 and such number of shares may be decreased (but not increased) by resolution of theBoard of Directors; provided, that no decrease shall reduce the number of shares of Series D Preferred Stock to a number less than that of the shares then outstanding plus the number of shares issuable upon exercise of outstanding rights,convertible notes, options or warrants or upon conversion of outstanding securities issued by the Company. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, any references in the Certificate of Designation regarding the number of shares of Series DPreferred Stock of 3,500,000 shall be deemed to be replaced by 4,000,000.” 

 

AMENDMENT FOUR TO SIXTH AMENDED AND 

RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION – Page 1 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of this 20th day of November, 2003, this AMENDMENT FOUR TO SIXTH AMENDED ANDRESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION has been executed by the President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the Company. 

 
**METROPCS, INC.**By: /s/    ROGER D. LINQUIST            
Name:
 **Roger D. Linquist**  
Title:
 **President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary**
 

AMENDMENT FOUR TO SIXTH AMENDED AND 

RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION - Signature Page
NO. 07-05-0256-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A 

	JULY 18, 2005

	______________________________

	IN RE BOBBY W. WILLARD, RELATOR

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS, CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

	By this original proceeding, relator Bobby W. Willard, acting pro se1 and in forma pauperis, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the judge of the 364th District Court of Lubbock County, to rule on motions for “recusal, to compel disclosure of prior DNA autoradiograph results or sanction.”  We deny the petition.

	Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the mandatory contents for a petition for mandamus.  Specifically, relator has failed to comply with subparagraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), (i) and (j) of Rule 52.3.  Rule 52.7 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the record to be filed with the petition for mandamus.  Specifically, relator has failed to comply with subparagraph (a)(1) of Rule 52.7.  Thus, because relator has not complied with the requirements of Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deny the petition.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice