alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Mark B. Thomas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of HEI, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) (Intentionally omitted)     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         Mark B. Thomas   Mark B. Thomas   Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer   Date: December 28, 2007
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 8, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-61040

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

FIDEL OROZCO AYALA, also known as Fidel Delgado

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:01-CR-162-WN-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fidel Orozco Ayala appeals his conviction following a

jury trial for conspiracy to distribute a substance containing

methamphetamine in an amount exceeding 500 grams. Ayala was

sentenced to life imprisonment.

 Ayala argues that the district court erred in denying

his FED. R. CRIM. P. 29 motion for acquittal based on the

insufficiency of the evidence. He argues that there was no
No. 02-61040

-2-

evidence to support a finding that he agreed to participate in

a conspiracy to transport methamphetamine from California to

Mississippi. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

jury’s verdict, including the testimony of Dionicio Lopez and the 

telephone records of the co-conspirators, it reflected that Ayala

agreed to and provided methamphetamine to Lopez on a continuing

basis for distribution to Henry York in Mississippi. See

United States v. Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1278 (5th Cir. 1996). 

The evidence of their ongoing drug distribution activity also

showed that there was more than a buyer/seller relationship

between Ayala and Lopez. United States v. Casel, 995 F.2d 1299,

1306 (5th Cir. 1993).

Ayala argues for the first time on appeal that the district

court’s jury instructions were insufficient under Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because they allowed the jury

to convict him without proof of all elements of the offense. 

The indictment sufficiently stated the elements of the drug

conspiracy offense and was read to the jury as part of the jury

instructions. The jury was also advised that the Government was

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy

involved possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams

of methamphetamine. The jury instruction was sufficient to

satisfy the requirements of Apprendi. See United States

v. Clinton, 256 F.3d 311, 314-315 (5th Cir. 2001). 
No. 02-61040

-3-

Further, due to the essentially uncontroverted evidence

that Ayala distributed for resale far in excess of 500 grams

of methamphetamine, any error in the jury instructions did not

affect his substantial rights nor did it affect the fairness of

the judicial proceeding. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S.

625, 631-33 (2002). 

AFFIRMED.
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the
40-F) of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2015 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion
and Analysis(MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which
are incorporated by reference therein.

The undersigned hereby consents to the references to, and the
information derived from, the report titled An Independent Technical Report on
the Maseve Project (WBJV Project areas 1 and 1A) located on the Western Limb of
the Bushveld Igneous Complex, South Africa, dated effective July 15, 2015, and
to the references, as applicable, to the undersigneds name included in or
incorporated by reference in the 40-F, the AIF and the MD&A.

|/s/ Gordon
      Cunningham | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Gordon Cunningham           | 
|Date: November 24, 2015     | 

---
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2038

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Flinten E. Otis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2008

Filed: April 11, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Flinten Otis appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after revoking his

supervised release. We affirm. 

We find that the revocation sentence of 24 months in prison is not unreasonable.

See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258-63 (2005)). First, the sentence was within both
-2-

statutory limits and the Chapter 7 range of 21-27 months in prison. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to 2-year prison term upon revocation of supervised

release where original offense is Class D felony); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) (range for

Grade B violation with Category VI criminal history is 21-27 months in prison).

Second, in sentencing Otis the district court considered appropriate factors, including

his extensive criminal history, the likelihood he would commit further crimes, and the

need to protect the public; and also stated that it was familiar with and had considered

all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B-C),

(a)(4)(B), § 3583(e) (permitting imposition of revocation sentence after consideration

of certain § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.

2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when

sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release; court’s statement at

sentencing that it imposed sentence “after having consulted the [G]uidelines” was

sufficient to show that court considered applicable Guidelines and policy statements);

United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required

is evidence that court considered relevant matters, not that court made specific

findings on each § 3553(a) factor). 

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. We decline

to address Otis’s ineffective assistance claim which is more appropriately raised in a

28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th

Cir. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims should ordinarily be brought in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 proceeding because they normally involve facts outside original record). 

______________________________
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15045-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 11-3 Filed 05/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
...±±oÛŒ⁄›Ù ÔÍ ”øÆ1⁄2 ̧ ÓððÈ ÔÁ

⁄·1 ́Æa ÔËÚ Ã ̧·­  ̧±¥a øo¶ø1⁄2a2 ̈  ̈± ...Ã›Ó  ̄¶±2a Ó ·2 ⁄·1 ́Æa ÌðÌ ̄1⁄2 ̃ ̃ ·­  ̈ ̧Æ± ́1 ̧ ­·oa©ø¥μ ø2o

°øTMa3a2 ̈Ú Ã ̧·­  ̧±¥a 1⁄2±2 ̈ø·2­ 3±Æa oaæÆ·­  ̈ ̧ø2  ̈ ̧a  ̧±¥a o·­1⁄2 ́­­ao ·2 ⁄·1 ́Æa Ìðð øæ±TMaÚ × ̈ ¥±±μø­ ·o  ̈ ̧a oaæÆ·­ oa¥¥ ·2  ̈ ̧a  ̧±¥aÚ “± ̈a  ̈ ̧a ­1⁄2ø¥aÙ ­ ̧±©2 øæ±TMaÚ  ̄° ̧± ̈± o·¥ao ÁÒÓÔÒðÔ ̃

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-9 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 3
...±±oÛŒ⁄›Ù ÔÍ ”øÆ1⁄2 ̧ ÓððÈ Óð

⁄·1 ́Æa ÔÁÚ Ã ̧a  ̈ ̧Æaa ­ ̈aa¥ © ̧aø ̈1⁄2 ̧a® ­ ̈øææao ·2 ̈± ...a­ ̈ Õ ̈Æaa ̈ ·2  ̈ ̧a o±Æa1Æ± ́2o ø2o  ̈ ̧a Æa3ø·2­ ±o

...Ã›Ì ·2  ̈ ̧a æø1⁄2μ1Æ± ́2oÙ ·2 oÆ±2 ̈ ±o  ̈ ̧a ©a­ ̈ ©ø¥¥ ±o ...Ã›ÓÚ

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-9 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 2 of 3
...±±oÛŒ⁄›Ù ÔÍ ”øÆ1⁄2 ̧ ÓððÈ ÓÔ

⁄·1 ́Æa ÓðÚ Ã ̧a Æa3øÆμøæ¥a  ̨¥øß o±©2 ̨ ±o ­ ̈aa¥ © ̧aø ̈1⁄2 ̧a® oÆ±3  ̈ ̧a ¥±©aÆ ­ ̈±Æ·a­ ±o ...Ã›Ô

±2 ...a­ ̈ Õ ̈Æaa ̈  ̄...a­ ̈ Õ·oa ÿ·1 ̧©øß ̃Ú Ã ̧a ...Ã›Ì oaæÆ·­ °·¥a ·­ ·2  ̈ ̧a æø1⁄2μ1Æ± ́2oÙ 2a® ̈  ̈±

 ̈ ̧a  ́2­ ́°°±Æ ̈ao ...Ã›Ó ©ø¥¥Ú  ̄ÁÒÔÌÒðÔ ̃

⁄·1 ́Æa ÓÔÚ ÿaÆa ·­ ø Æa3·2oaÆ ±o  ̈ ̧a 3ø ̈aÆ·ø¥  ̈ ̧ø ̈ 3 ́­ ̈ æa ø1⁄21⁄2± ́2 ̈ao o±Æ ·2  ̈ ̧a Æ ́ææ¥a °·¥aÚ

 ·a©ao oÆ±3 ...a­ ̈ Õ ̈Æaa ̈Ú

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 59-9 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-14940-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30803 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN LACOUR, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-10012-03

- - - - - - - - - - April 11, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: *John Lacour appeals from his sentence following his guiltyplea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He argues that the district court’s imposition of a $40,000 fine was error. Because he failed to object to the presentence report’s calculation of the fine, this issue is reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Matovsky , 935 F.2d 719, 722 (5th Cir. 1991); see also
F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(b).No. 98-30803 -2- The district court imposed a fine toward the low end of the applicable guideline range and based the fine explicitly on the presentence report’s findings regarding Lacour’s previous employment history. The district court’s holding was not plain error. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Case 1:06-cv-15049-AKH     Document 9      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-15049-AKH     Document 9      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:06-cv-15049-AKH     Document 9      Filed 02/06/2008     Page 3 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03311-KMK Document 7 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Terry W. KIRSCHENMANN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 05-3007.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 11, 2005.

*ORDER*

Terry W. Kirschenmann moves without opposition to voluntarily dismiss his petition for review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in *Kirschenmann v. United States Postal Serv.,*No. CH-0351-03-0598-I-1, 96 M.S.P.R. 646 (M.S.P.B. Aug.12, 2004).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The unopposed motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Rees *et al.*v. McDaniel, *Appellant.*

Division Two,

December 17,1895.

Appellate Practice: mandate. Where a cause is remanded by the supreme court with specific directions as to further proceedings, the trial court has no authority to do anything not embraced in such directions.

*Appeal from Platte Circuit Court.*— Hon. W. S. Herndon, Judge.

Affirmed.

*Thos. J. Porter*for appellant.

*J. W. Coburn*for respondents.

Burgess, J.

When the case of which this seems to be an offshoot was before this court on a former occasion, *Rees v. McDaniel,*115 Mo. 145, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with specific *682directions., that is, “with directions to the circuit court to order a survey so as to ascertain where the line of the river bank was at the time of the sudden change of the river in 1881, in so far as it touches or runs through the land in controversy, and that after having ascertained where said bank was at the time last aforesaid, that it enter up judgment for plaintiff for the possession of all the land sued for up to said line.” This it appears from the copy of the proceedings before us, the court, acting in pursuance of said directions, did. The cause was not remanded for further trial. Nor for any purpose other than as specified in the directions, which were strictly complied with.

The rule as announced by this court is that, where a cause is remanded by us with directions as to further proceedings, the case does not occupy the same status as if it had been simply reversed and remanded, but that where special directions have been given, it is out of the power of the lower court to do anything beyond or not embraced in the specific directions. *Shroyer v. Nickell,*67 Mo. 589; *Hurck v. Erskine,*50 Mo. 116; *Chouteau v. Allen,*74 Mo. 56; *Stump v. Hornback,*109 Mo. 272. The judgment is affirmed.

Gantt, P. J., and Sherwood J., concur.
#### NUNAN v. CHESHIRE

No. 79 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 730.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0345 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUDSON LEE BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 20, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2021

11/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0345
Case 1:06-cv-15091-AKH Document 6 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15091-AKH Document 6 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30262

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER MCDONALD,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:04-CR-50096

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher McDonald pleaded guilty pursuant to a written

plea agreement to mail fraud and health care fraud and was

sentenced to 37 months in prison for each count, to run

concurrently, three years of supervised release on each count, to

run concurrently, $61,258.16 in restitution, and a $200 special

assessment.
No. 05-30262

-2-

2 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

McDonald argues that the district court plainly erred in

imposing his post-Booker2 sentence pursuant to a mandatory

guideline sentencing scheme. Booker excised from the Sentencing

Reform Act the mandatory duty of district courts to apply the

Sentencing Guidelines and effectively rendered the Guidelines

advisory only, and McDonald was sentenced under an advisory

guidelines scheme. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 259. Therefore,

McDonald’s argument lacks merit.

McDonald also contends that his sentence was unreasonable

because, in light of his cooperation with the Government, the

district court could have chosen not to impose prison time if it

had not followed the Guidelines. He does not challenge the

calculation of his guideline sentencing range.

Because McDonald’s sentence was within a properly calculated

guideline range of 37 to 46 months, we infer that the district

court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in

the Guidelines. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). “[A] sentence

within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively

reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th

Cir. 2006). McDonald has failed to demonstrate that his properly

calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See id.; Mares,

402 F.3d at 519. 

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE v. PARRISH

No. 823.

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 587.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 20 November 1968.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bernard KNIGHT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4940.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2005.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Lisa A. Broccoletti, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Knight appeals the district court’s order imposing a thirty-six month term of imprisonment and a twenty-four month term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently, upon revocation of his supervised release. Knight’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Knight. Although informed of his right to do so, Knight has not filed a supplemental brief.

We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Moreover, because Knight’s sentence does not exceed the maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), we review the sentence to determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude Knight’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

In accordance with the requirements of *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Knight’s sentence. This court requires counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be *502frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health

November 4, 2016

Mr. Thomas E. Perez
Secretary of Labor
Department of labor

200 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC NW 20210

Honorable Secretary Perez:

On behalf of the Department of Labor Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker
Health, I submit the attached recommendations and accompanying rationales that we adopted at
our October 17-19, 2016 meeting in Oak Ridge, TN. These recommendations fall within the
scope of the chartered mission of the Advisory Board and represent our initial attempts to
address multiple components of the current Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program.

Mr. Howie, Ms. Leiton and the rest of the leadership and staff of the Office of Workers
Compensation Program and the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation have been extraordinarily supportive of our work. There has also been very active
and frank input from the public to the Advisory Board. For both, we are grateful.

We continue to learn about this complicated program and look forward to developing
additional recommendations, which we will submit as they are adopted. We hope that our advice
is useful.

Si ly,

7

Steven Markowitz MD, DrPH

Chair

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances
and Worker Health
Case 1:06-cv-15113-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15113-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2