alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
91-25-36A11:C6 RCVS
January 20, 2006

Larry Elliott, director Office off Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health

Dear Mr. Elliott,

I am responding to you about an article in the Tri-City Herald dated Friday, January 20,
2006 concerning the possible change in the rules for former Hanford workers with
lymphoma cancers. After visiting the Federal Register web site to see what the changes
might be, I found out that that they were not easy for me to find. I did not know how to
find them or to even look them up. After a few try’s I gave up. If some one can send me
information on where to look I would appreciate it. And tell me what effect these will
have on past claims? And please remember that I am not a lawyer or a highly educated
person, so if the explanation can be in simple terms that I might understand, I would
greatly appreciate it.

These inquiries are to help my mom who is a survivor to my dads claim. Below I will
include my dad’s full name and claim number for you to reference to. I believe my mom
has sent in the proper information to your organization so that you can give me
information concerning my dads claim. And the possible changes to it that these new
tules might accomplish. I will also include my mom’s information so that she may be
copied also.

And finally the article asked for comments on the proposed changes, my father worked
most of his adult life in the Hanford Area. He was a proud man who sacrificed a lot of his
time and effort to helping the missions at Hanford succeed. And thru those efforts we
believe that he contracted his cancer (Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with bone marrow)
while performing his duties there. So any rule change that would help my mom receive
the compensation she deserves because of the sacrifice and loss she, and the rest of our
family has had would be only fair. So please consider this letter a show of support toward
those changes.

Thank you,

Survivor:

Son:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M OISES DARIO ARIAS, Pe titioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70614 Age n c y No. A075-714-114 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . M oise s Da

rio Aria s, a

native and c itiz e n of B olivia , pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s re m ova l orde r. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § § § 1252. W e re vie wde novo c onstitutiona l c la im s a n d que stions of la

w. 

# F IL ED AUG 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Hamazaspyan v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dism iss in pa

rt thepe tition for re vie w. The B IA c orre c t ly

de te rm ine d tha

t Aria s m a de a

knowing a

nd inte llige nt wa ive r of his right to a

ppe a l. Se eUnite d State

s v . Estrada-Torre

s , 179 F.3d 776, 781 (9th C i r. 1999) (“ B e c a use the im

m igration judge e xpla ine d the right to a ppe a l to [pe titioner] (with theothe r de porte e s) a nd individua

lly a ske d him

spe c ific a lly

if he wa nte d to a p pe a l his deporta

tion orde r, his wa ive r of his right to a p pe a l wa s

‘ c onside re d a

nd inte llige nt.’ ” ) (c ita

tion omi tte d), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v . Riv e ra-Sanc he

z , 247 F.3d 905 (9th C i r. 2001). As thea ppe a l wa ive r wa s e ffe c tive , the B IA prope rly dism isse d Aria s’ a p pe a l for la c k of jurisdic tion. Se eMatte r of Rodrigue z-Diaz , 22 I. & N. De c . 1320, 1322 (B IA 2000) (“ B y

wa iving a

ppe a l, a n a lie n re linquishe s the opportunity to obta in re vie w of the Im m igration Judge ’ s ruling.” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w Aria s’ re m a ining une xha uste d c onte ntions. Se eTijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 0 6 1 4 2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 231

- CV

Caldwell County Sheriff = s Office , Appellant

v.
Barbara Crider, Jacqueline Jackson, and Joshua Verdecanna , Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 02

- 0

- 078 , HONORABLE ROBERT ESCHENBURG II , JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Caldwell County Sh eriff = s Office filed a notice of appeal from the trial

- court order
denying its plea to the jurisdiction in this cause. Appellant has now informed us that the trial court has

withdr awn that order in order to hear further argument at a later date. Because there is no longer an
appealable order, appellant has moved to dismiss the appeal. Appellees do not oppose the motion. We
grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Dismissed on Appellant =

s Motion
Filed: May 9, 2002

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of Sienna Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Julie
Carter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of August, 2009.


/s/ Julie Carter
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FSP 303 East Wacker Drive Corp. (the “Company”) for the period
ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, George J. Carter, President and principal executive officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: May 12, 2011 | /s/ George J. Carter
        George J. Carter
        President
        (Principal Executive Officer)
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
31.1








CERTIFICATION





I, Lior
Ostashinsky , certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, of Ametrine Capital, Inc.;





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
period presented in this report;





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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)  [paragraph
omitted in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)];





c) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





d) Disclosed in
this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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 controls 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
13, 2009


By: /s/Lior
      OstashinskyLior
      OstashinskyPresident(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Linde Work Group Report 

ABRWH June 2012 Meeting 

Gen Roessler, Chair 

Josie Beach 

Jim Lockey 

Mike Gibson 
Background 

• SECs granted: 

 October 1, 1942 – October 31, 1947 

 November 1, 1947 – December 31, 1953 

 January 1, 1954 – December 31, 1969 

Requirements: 

– At least one of the 22 “specified cancers”

– Worked for at least 250 days at the site. 

• Dose Reconstruction: 

 January 1, 1970 - July 31, 2006 
Work Group Activities 

• TBD Review Began in March 2007 

• Completed SEC Petition Evaluations 

• TBD Issues 

– All resolved except for two issues related to utility 

tunnels and how dose reconstruction is done for 

workers who do not qualify for compensation under 

SECs 

1. When were certain sections of the tunnels built, 

and

2. How much time was spent in tunnels. 
Recent Meetings 

NIOSH, work group, and SC&A had agreement, but 

worker statements needed clarification and we 

needed input on tunnel occupancy. 

• Information Meeting 

 Buffalo: 30 April 2012 

• Teleconference Call 

 30 May 2012 
Buffalo Meeting 

• Present 

– 5 Linde workers 

– 3 WG members 

– Jim Neton, NIOSH 

– Steve Ostrow, SC&A 

– 2 ATL members, one took notes 

– Ted Katz 
Agenda 

• Background and needs of work group 

• Viewing of Linde “maps”

– 1957 pre-construction diagrams 

– 1961 pre-construction diagrams 

• Discussions 

– One on one 

– Group 

• Wrap Up 

• Plan Forward 
Teleconference Call Summary 

1. When tunnels were built: 

NIOSH will use dose information for these areas 

during these time periods. 
Teleconference Call Summary 

2. Time spent in tunnels: 

– All “crafts” workers: 50%

– All other workers: 5% 

• Conclusion 

Workgroup and SC&A agree that all TBD 

issues are resolved.
EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------

                             CRAGAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
                  Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share


Earnings Per Share

                                                      For the Year Ended
                                                          December 31,
                                                   -------------------------
                                                       2002          2001
                                                   -----------   -----------
Earnings (loss) from continuing operations

Earnings (loss) before extraordinary items         $   108,365   $(1,405,543)

Extraordinary item - gain on forgiveness of debt       352,965        48,512
                                                   -----------   -----------

Income available to common stockholders            $   461,330   $(1,357,031)
                                                   ===========   ===========

Basic EPS - Weighted Average
       Shares Outstanding                            3,839,429     3,721,908
                                                   ===========   ===========

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share before
       extraordinary item                          $      0.03   $     (0.37)

Extraordinary item                                        0.09          --
                                                   -----------   -----------

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                    $      0.12   $     (0.37)
                                                   ===========   ===========

Basic EPS - Weighted Average
       Shares Outstanding                            3,839,429     3,721,908

Effect of Diluted Securities:
       Stock Options and Warrants                       46,739          --
                                                   -----------   -----------

Diluted EPS - Weighted Average
       Shares Outstading                             3,886,168     3,721,908
                                                   ===========   ===========

Diluted Earnings Per Share                         $      0.12   $     (0.37)
                                                   ===========   ===========

Weighted Average Calculation:
       Number of shares beginning of year            3,839,429     2,456,990

       Number of shares end of year                  3,839,429     3,016,716

       Average number of shares                      3,839,429     2,736,853
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN REDACTED AND IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST. REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED WITH [* * *] AND HAS
BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 

This First Amendment pertains to the License Agreement (hereinafter the “License Agreement”) effective August 11, 1997 by and
between the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter M.I.T.) and ADVANCED INHALATION RESEARCH, INC. (hereinafter AIR), and to a Joint Invention Agreement by and between M.I.T. and the PENNSYLVANIA STATE RESEARCH FOUNDATION (hereinafter
PSRF). 
 WHEREAS, M.I.T. and PSRF are joint owners of certain PATENT RIGHTS relating to M.I.T. Case No. [***]; and 

WHEREAS, PSRF, in the First Amendment to the Joint Invention Agreement, effective September 19, 1997, and attached hereto as Attachment
A, appointed M.I.T. as its sole and exclusive agent for the licensing of its patent rights in M.I.T. Case [***], so that M.I.T. has the right to grant an exclusive license under said PATENT RIGHTS, subject only to a royalty-free, nonexclusive
license heretofore granted to the United States Government. 
 The parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. M.I.T. agrees to add, in consideration for the sum of [***] M.I.T. case [***], U.S.S.N. [***], to the PATENT RIGHTS. 

2. LICENSEE agrees to pay all costs associated with the U.S. and foreign prosecution, filing and maintenance of M.I.T. case [***], U.S.S.N.
[***]. 
 This offer extends to December 31, 1997. 
  

									
	MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY	 		 	ADVANCED INHALATION RESEARCH, INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Lori Pressman
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ David Edwards

					
	Name:	 	 Lori Pressman
	 		 	Name:	 	 David Edwards

					
	Title:	 	 Assistant Director, Technology Licensing Office
	 		 	Title:	 	 President

					
	Date:	 	 December 16, 1997
	 		 	Date:	 	 12/18/97
Page 1 of 2

Miller, Diane M.

From: Jerry Tudor [door4@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 12:17 PM
To: niocindocket@cdc.gov

Subject: Special Cohort Additions

Iam Jerry Tudor with the United Sick Oppressed Laborers (USOL) from Oak Ridge, TN,
and am a member of the Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE). The following are
very serious problems I see as a sick worker with the special cohort:

1. The amount of time it takes for a person to petition NIOSH to become a special
cohort, such as, in my case I applied in July of 2001 and would have to wait on a denial
letter and should DOE not have records for NIOSH to do a dose reconstruction, it would
be well over another year for me to become a special cohort. This would not help a lot
of people because they do not have a listed cancer. Is this really fair for sick workers
to have to wait over two years to become a special cohort?

2. My understanding the reason gaseous diffusion plants were made special cohorts
was because they proved that DOE had inadequate records to do dose reconstruction
on employees at these facilities. If this be the case, how can you do a dose
reconstruction on someone who worked at the gaseous diffusion plants, who do not |
have a covered cancer? Did they keep better records on people with cancers that are
not covered by special cohort than they did people with covered cancers?

3. If I was a worker at Y-12 and had lung cancer and you had to do a dose
reconstruction on me, I would be questioning if they can do dose reconstructions on
uncovered cancers at gaseous diffusion plants, why could they not do them on all i
cancers. Why would I have to have a dose reconstruction just because I did not work }
at a gaseous diffusion plant? If I was a worker at a gaseous diffusion plant and I had

a cancer that was not covered under this special cohort, I would be questioning why |
you can do dose reconstructions at other facilities and not at a gaseous diffusion
plant?

4. This process has been well over a year since it became law. I feel it is very unfair to |
the sick workers. I hope and pray that the way I feel is not the case, but my feelings
are dose reconstruction is a way to deny claims--how else in the May 29
teleconference call, that it was stated, that the majority of these claims would be
denied and that there would be a lot of angry people. I feel that the whole process of
dose reconstruction is flawed when NIOSH says they are going to use "scientific
assumptions" to establish my dose reconstruction. I understood that the benefit of
the doubt would go to the claimant. If any records are missing or inadequate, NIOSH
should say "it's as likely as not" that their cancers were caused by working at these
facilities. Why should we have to wait to be put in a special cohort? Why should
NIOSH or DOL not say "it's as likely as not."

Jerry Tudor (USOL and CHE)

8/22/2002 H


Page 2 of 2

http://communities.msn.com/sickworkers

t
|

8/22/2002
Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Surrogate Data Work Group Meeting Agenda

TELECONFERENCE

Date: May 13, 2010

Conference Call Number: (866)-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701

Start Time: 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time

1. Welcome, roll-call, introduction 

2. Discussion of Revised Surrogate Data Criteria & Updated Inventory

3. Discussion of Bethlehem Steel SEC
* 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. 97-41114 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ARTURO PARRA-TORRES, also known as Juan Tapia-Torres, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-141-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Arturo Parra-Torres appeals his sentence for unlawfully entering the United States after having been previously deported. Parra-Torres argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), based upon his prior commission of an aggravated felony, because the charging indictment did not mention the prior aggravated felony conviction. His argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 1998 WL 126904, at *3, *8 (U.S. Mar. 24, 1998).No. -2-
AFFIRMED.
ABRWH 

Work Group on TBD-6000

November 28, 2012

9:00 a.m. EDT

Cincinnati Airport Marriott 

2395 Progress Dr., Hebron, KY 41048 

859-586-0166 

 Conference Phone: 1-866-659-0537 

Participant Code: 9933701# 

AGENDA

1. Welcome and roll call. 

2. DCAS surrogate data follow-up (November 2012 NIOSH White Paper – D. 

Allen) for the General Steel Industries SEC Petition 00105 and SC&A review. 

(Dave Allen & Bob Anigstein/John Mauro -- response) 

3. GSI petitioner comments and responses (Patricia Jeske/Dan McKeel; Dave 

Allen/Bob Anigstein – responses to any technical matters). 

4. Work Group discussion and recommendations on the use of surrogate data. 

Complete SEC recommendations. 

5. Status of remaining TBD issues (Paul Ziemer) and discussion of open issues as 

time permits.

6. Overview of plans for the full Board presentations on December 11, 2012. (Paul 

Ziemer)

7. Adjourn (3:00 p.m.)
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Green EnviroTech Holdings Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wayne Leggett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





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





August 6, 2010





By:
/s/ Wayne LeggettWayne Leggett

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Accounting Officer)