alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Suggested Lab Report Grading Rubric: 25 possible points. 

Points Introduction Experimental Design Results Conclusion/Discussion Grammar and 

Spelling

5 Well researched, 

excellent 

comprehension 

of material, 

hypothesis 

clearly stated 

Students relate 

design to specific 

question. 

Protocols outlined 

clearly.

Students show 

understanding of 

experimental 

concepts like 

standardization, 

replication, etc. 

Students have 

labeled, legible 

graph of correct 

data with figure 

caption that 

explains graph and 

data.

Students demonstrate 

comprehension by 

linking results back to 

original hypothesis (i.e. 

Original hypothesis was 

supported or not). 

Students discuss natural 

selection implications of 

osmotic balance using 

their results. 

<3 errors

4 Decent 

background, 

moderate 

understanding, 

hypothesis 

clearly stated

Students detail 

experimental design 

but do not link to 

hypotheses. 

Protocols outlined.

Some understanding 

of experimental 

concepts.

Neat and clean 

graph with correct 

data. Graph has 

figure captions but 

no axis labels.

Students link results to 

hypothesis but do not 

clearly state whether 

they hypothesis was 

supported. 

Some discussion of 

implications towards 

natural selection. 

<6 errors

3 Some 

background, 

little 

understanding, 

hypothesis 

mentioned

Students poorly 

communicate 

experimental design, 

protocols barely 

mentioned, little 

understanding of 

experimental 

concepts.

Graph does not 

have proper data or 

mixed up axes. 

Graph is missing 

labels or figure 

caption as well. 

Students do not link 

results to hypothesis, 

merely restate methods 

and results. 

Little or no discussion of 

broader concepts.

<9 errors

2 Little background 

information, 

little 

comprehension 

of the topic, no 

hypothesis 

Experimental design 

is protocols only with 

no indication that 

students understand 

reasoning behind the 

design or its 

relationship to 

hypothesis.

Graph is incorrect 

data, lacks axis 

labels, figure 

captions, etc. 

Students repeat previous 

sections with zero 

discussion of 

implications or 

relationships.

<12 errors

1 No background 

research, very 

little 

comprehension, 

no mention of 

hypotheses

Experimental design 

is a picture or 

diagram with little or 

no text explaining 

protocols. 

Hypothesis not 

mentioned.

Graph is illegible or 

absent.

Students demonstrate 

little understanding, do 

not link the sections 

together, do not make 

any broader inferences 

on work. 

>13 errors
Exhibit








AMENDMENT TO LOCK-UP AGREEMENT


Reference is made to a certain Lock-Up Agreement dated as of December 6, 2017 (the "Lock-Up Agreement"), between the undersigned shareholder ("Shareholder") and Apollo Medical Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Apollo"). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings given to such terms in the Lock-Up Agreement.


For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Apollo and Shareholder agree that the expiration date of the "First Lock-Up Period" (as defined in the Lock Up Agreement) is hereby extended to and including September 30, 2019. Except as expressly amended above, all of the terms and conditions of the Lock-Up Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


AGREED:








"Apollo"     "Shareholder"




By:        _______________________________
Mitchell Kitayama
Lead Independent Committee Director
 
By:
Eric Chin
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 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 on Form 10-Q of InfraSource Services,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"),
David R. Helwig, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Terence R.
Montgomery, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
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 his knowledge:
The Form 10-Q 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
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

/s/ DAVID R. HELWIG                            /s/ TERENCE R. MONTGOMERY
--------------------------------               ---------------------------------
David R. Helwig                                Terence R. Montgomery
Chief Executive Officer                        Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 12, 2005                          Date: August 12, 2005

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q 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.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5135 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

201 West Greenway Street in Derby, Kansas, as the ‘‘Sergeant Jamie 

O. Maugans Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2008 

Mr. TIAHRT (for himself, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, and 

Mr. MOORE of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 201 West Greenway Street in Derby, Kansas, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT JAMIE O. MAUGANS POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 201 West Greenway Street in 

7 Derby, Kansas, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans Post Office Building’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5135 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Jamie O. 

5 Maugans Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,105
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             889
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      4,737
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,433
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,405
<LOANS>                                         87,840
<ALLOWANCE>                                        586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,542
<DEPOSITS>                                      73,846
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                828
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,099
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 100,542
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,180
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  728
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,908
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,571
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,804
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,104
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       18
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,398
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       899
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.32
<LOANS-NON>                                        187
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    312
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   568
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  586
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               521
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             65


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Doan Van NGUYEN.

No. 392P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Edwin W. Welch, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of July 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *861pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MANUEL SALAIS-VASQUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-10094D.C. No. 4:13-cr-01766-CKJLAB-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 9, 2015 **

San Francisco California Before: NOONAN, W. FLETCHER, and DAVIS, *** Circuit Judges. 

# FILED
MAR 24 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.Manuel Salais-Vasquez appeals his c onviction by guilty plea and sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review for plain error a claim of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 violation where, as here, the defendant failed to raise the issue below. United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). The defendant must show: “(1) an error (2) that was clear or obvious, (3) that affected substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Castillo-Marin , 684 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2012). An error under Rule 11 that affects substantial rights is one for whic h the defendant can show “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). We conclude the district court’s failure to provide a general warning as to the immigration consequences of a guilty plea was not reversible error because Salais-Vasquez has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have pled guilty. The districtcourt erred by failing to warn SalaisVasquez that he would be denied citizen ship or admission, as Rule 11 and the Advisory Committee Notes require. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(O); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes, 2013 Amendment, Subdivision (b)(1)(O). 2However, this error did not affect Salais-Vasquez’s substantial rights. See Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. at 83. Salais-Vasquez was already aware, because of his prior deportation as an alien convicted of murder and kidnapping, that he would be denied re-entry and citizenship. That Salais-Vasquez knew he crossed the border illegally confirms he understood he could not enter legally. His guilty plea here did not change his immigration status, except as to his removal, of which he was informed by the Magistrate Judge
. AFFIRMED
.

3
# L_2016146EN.01003701.xml

| 3.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 146/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 146/37

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/535 of 5 April 2016 amending Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 as regards the entry of Singapore in the list of third countries, territories or parts thereof from which the introduction into the Union of fresh meat is authorised

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 89 of 6 April 2016
  )

On page 13, in the Annex, in the model veterinary certificate NZ-TRANSIT-SG, point II.1 'Health attestation', in the last line of point II.1.3:

for:

‘... requirements of Section I and V respectively of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 ...’,

read:

‘... requirements of Section I and V respectively of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 ...’.

---
WARD v. WACHOVIA BANK, NA

No. COA05-246

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Forsyth (04CVS3825).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

# **CERTIFICATIONBY THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Visant Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc L. Reisch, the Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: May 14, 2007 |   | /s/ Marc L.  Reisch            |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|               |   | Marc L. Reisch                 |
|               |   | *President  and*               |
|               |   | *Chief  Executive Officer*     |
|               |   | (principal  executive officer) |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Ecclesia Word Ministries International, Inc., Appellant, v Patrick Brophy et al., Respondents.

[798 NYS2d 915]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Carmel, dated June 9, 2003, which denied the petitioner’s application for a real property tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a (1), the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeney, J.), dated April 2, 2004, as, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*373The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner was not entitled to a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a (1). The petitioner failed to demonstrate that its property was used exclusively for one or more of the exempt purposes set forth in RPTL 420-a (1) (a) *(see Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg,*79 NY2d 244, 249; *Matter of Swedenborg Found, v Lewisohn,*40 NY2d 87, 93-94 [1976]; *Matter of Association of Bar of City of N.Y. v Lewisohn,*34 NY2d 143, 153 [1974]). Thus, there was a rational basis for the determination of the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Carmel that the petitioner failed to establish entitlement to an exemption from real estate taxes *(see*RPTL 420-a; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]; *Matter of Marble Masonic Historical Socy. v Tuckahoe Assessment Review Bd.,*262 AD2d 487, 488 [1999]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
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 Big Dog Holdings, Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), We, Andrew D. Feshbach, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company and Robert J Morris, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to s.s. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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/ANDREW D. FESHBACH                                /s/ROBERTA J. MORRIS
----------------------------------                   --------------------------
Andrew D. Feshbach                                   Roberta J. Morris
President and Chief Executive Officer                Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2004                                       March 30, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   JUL-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                        JUL-27-1997
<CASH>                                                                2,634,000
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         3,801,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                           7,282,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     20,405,000
<PP&E>                                                              279,557,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       36,940,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      313,450,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                65,298,000
<BONDS>                                                             149,749,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                 10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                           16,114,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        313,450,000
<SALES>                                                             175,286,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    175,286,000
<CGS>                                                                20,303,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       160,971,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   23,707,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (9,392,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         (3,613,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  (5,779,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (5,779,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                             (5.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             (5.91)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2017446EN.01000401.xml

| 29.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 446/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 446/4

---

Declaration by the President of the European Parliament on the reform of the system of own resources of the Union

(2017/C 446/02)

Without prejudice to Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament is committed to the reform of the system of own resources of the Union, based on the recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources. In this context, the European Parliament underlines the need for comprehensive legislative proposals on the Union’s own resources together with the next multiannual financial framework. The Union’s revenue and expenditure should be dealt with in parallel.

---