alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEN RAY LUJAN

3r0 O: Meco

Commrrtge on NATURAL RESOURCES

Suscomas
IwoiAN AND ALASKA

‘AFFAIRS

Water ano Power.
& | r Commitee on Science ano TechoLoay
£ enero HES ON
Congress of the United States ad

‘ é House of Representatives
pees seus Washington, DC 20515

NIOSH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
Century Center

Clairmont Rd.

Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Dr. Melius,

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for coming to New Mexico, for allowing me
the opportunity to offer a statement for the record and for allowing me to call into the
meeting earlier today. I send my regrets that I could not join you in person. I write today
in strong support of Special Exposure Cohort Petition (SEC)-00109 regarding Los
Alamos National Laboratory Support Services Workers from January 01, 1976 through
December 31, 2005.

I would like to highlight the history of SEC-00109 with the board today. The original
petition was submitted in April of 2008 and qualified for evaluation in May of the same
year. The petition evaluation was finally prepared and submitted by NIOSH in February
of 2009, a full 180 days past the required deadline to do so. Since February 2009,
NIOSH has taken no further action on SEC-00109, creating a full three years of inaction
on the part of NIOSH regarding this particular petition

It is my understanding that the lack of action over the last three years is due to NIOSH’s
inability to obtain data from LANL to support their premise that the dose can be
reconstructed using substitute radio nuclides for reconstruction. After this significant
delay, it is time to drop the substitute data and move on to another type of methodology
to perform dose reconstruction so that action upon the petition can finally be taken.
Many of my constituents have been negatively affected by the inaction of NIOSH on this
petition. These workers have contributed to the safety and security of our nation and as a
result have seen their health negatively impacted by their work. This petition recognizes
the sacrifices these workers have made and provides them with the compensation they
deserve. It is long past time to move forward on this petition.

Sincerely,

Rep. Ben Ray Lujan
United States House of Representatives, NM 03
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 20.1

                         [ERNST & YOUNG LLP LETTERHEAD]


                         Report of Independent Auditors

Board of Directors
WFS Financial Inc


We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated statement of financial condition of WFS Financial Inc and
Subsidiaries (WFS) as of December 31, 1996 and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, and have issued our report thereon dated January 28, 1997.

In connection with our audit nothing came to our attention that caused us to
believe that WFS failed to comply with the terms, covenants, provisions or
conditions of either the Pooling and Servicing Agreements for WFS Financial
Auto Loans, Inc. dated June 1, 1993, September 1, 1993, December 1, 1993,
March 1, 1994, May 1, 1994, August 1, 1994, October 1, 1994, January 1, 1995,
March 1, 1995, June 1, 1995, September 1, 1995 or December 1, 1995, or the Sale
and Servicing Agreements for WFS Financial Auto Loans, Inc. dated March 1,
1996, June 1, 1996, September 1, 1996 or December 1, 1996 between Bankers Trust
Company and WFS insofar as they relate to accounting and auditing matters.
However, it should be noted that our audit was not directed primarily toward
obtaining a knowledge of noncompliance.

This report is intended for the use and information of the Board of Directors,
management and Bankers Trust Company and should not be used for any other
purpose.



                                      /S/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

January 28, 1997
Order entered March 21, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00162-CV

IN RE DAVID BARNES, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-11126

ORDER

Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith

Before the Court is relator’s March 1, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus in 

which he challenges the trial court’s “Order on Substitution of Faith and Liberty’s 

Place,” “Order for Supervised Visitation,” and “Temporary Order for Father 

Supervised Possession and Access at Faith and Liberty’s Place.” Relator’s petition

fails to mention that this Court already denied his mandamus petition challenging

the trial court’s November 17, 2021 oral ruling. See In re Barnes, No. 05-21-

01042-CV, 2021 WL 5817333, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 7, 2021, orig. 

proceeding) (finding no abuse of discretion). It appears that the November 17, 

2021 oral ruling, which was memorialized in the challenged written orders, set 
virtually the same possession schedule that relator complains about here. In 

addition to failing to mention this Court’s December 7, 2021 opinion, relator also

has not explained why a different outcome would be warranted here.

Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.11, we 

ORDER relator to file, by March 24, 2022, a response showing cause why this 

Court should not impose sanctions on him for filing a petition that is: (1) clearly 

groundless; and (2) grossly misstates or omits an obviously important and material 

fact in the petition.

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9
- 03 26 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LAWRENCE MATTHEW BRASDA ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a n extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including January 25 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response .

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

January 5 2021

01/05/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0326
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 Man Shing Agricultural
Holdings, Inc, (the "Company") for the three months ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenny Chow, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify
that:
  
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our
consolidated financial condition and results of operations.
 
 
 /s/ Kenny
Chow
 Kenny
Chow
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 Date:
November 10, 2009
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report 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 us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Pinellas Work Group Meeting

November 20, 2023 

Videoconference: 

Join ZoomGov Meeting 

https://cdc.zoomgov.com/j/16067633819?pwd=RUdiYXlZZHFKanpJOHZrcGJIbTlaZz09

Teleconference: 

Phone: +1 (646) 828-7666 (U.S. East) 

Phone: +1 (669) 254-5252 (U.S. West) 

Meeting ID: 160 6763 3819 

Passcode: 98685439 

11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) Start

Welcome and Roll Call 

1. NIOSH/DCAS Presentation: “Petition Special Exposure Cohort (SEC)-00256, Pinellas 

Plant SEC Evaluation Report (ER)” 

2. SC&A Presentation: “Interim SC&A Review of the SEC Evaluation Report for Petition 

SEC-00256: Pinellas Plant,” 

3. NIOSH Response to “Interim SC&A Review of the SEC Evaluation Report for Petition 

SEC-00256: Pinellas Plant,” 

4. Workgroup Discussion 

5. Petitioner Comments (optional to Petitioner)

6. Workgroup Discussion of Path Forward 

a. December Board Meeting Plans, if applicable

b. Follow-up Actions 

Adjourn
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KAMMERON MCKENZIE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 52 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00343- CR

Cha r le s Edwa r d Cr os s, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 55293 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt C ha rl e s E dw ard

Cr os s w a s p la c e d o n d e fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n c omm un ity supervision afte r plea ding guilty to ag g ravated assault. SeeTe x. Pe n. Co de Ann . § 22 .0 2 ( Wes t Supp. 2004-05). The c ourt later grante d the State’s motion to adjudicate and se ntence d Cross to four y ear s in prison. Cross’s court-a ppointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. The br ief mee ts the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by pr e se nti nga

pr of e ssi on a l e va luatio n o f t he reco rd dem on str a tin g why the re are no argua

ble g rounds to be adva

nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U. S. 75 (1 98 8) ; Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W .2d 80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur rie v . S tate , 5 16 S.W. 2d

68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Jack son v. Sta te , 48 5 S.W. 2d 55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.2

19 69 ). Cr os s r e c e ive d a c op y of c ouns e l’ s b ri e f a nd wa s a dv ise d o f h is r ig ht t o e xami ne the a pp e llate
rec ord and f

ile a pro se brief. N o pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We have r eviewe d the re c o r d and counse l’s brief a

nd ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the r ecor d that might arguably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

____________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: Oc tober 13, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 10.18 


 


June 15, 2014


 


Dr. John Thompson


1438120 Ontario Limited


University of Waterloo


Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1


Canada


 


Re:      Amendment #9 to Consulting Agreement of July
12, 1999


 


Dear Dr. Thompson:


 


This will modify paragraph 11 of your Consulting
Agreement with Senesco dated July 12, 1999, as modified.


 


Effective immediately, the term of the
Consulting Agreement, as modified, will be extended for an additional 1 year term through June 30, 2015.


 


All other terms of the Agreement remain
unchanged.


 


Sincerely,


  


Leslie J. Browne, Ph.D.


President


Senesco, Inc.


  


Acknowledged and Agreed:


 


	/s/ John Thompson	 
	1438120 Ontario Limited	 
	Dr. John Thompson
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5744 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5744

   To prohibit surface occupancy for purposes of mineral leasing or 
development on certain land located in Plata County, Colorado, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2018

  Mr. Tipton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit surface occupancy for purposes of mineral leasing or 
development on certain land located in Plata County, Colorado, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Shenandoah Parcel 7387 No Surface 
Occupancy Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY ON CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit 
surface occupancy on and surface disturbance of covered Federal land 
for purposes of mineral leasing or development under the Mineral 
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
    (b) Definition of Covered Land.--In this section, the term 
``covered Federal land'' means land administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management and located in La Plata County, Colorado, that comprises 
approximately 40 acres as generally depicted on the map entitled 
``Shenandoah Parcel 7387, La Plata County, CO'' and dated April 23, 
2018.
    (c) Availability of Map.--The map described in subsection (b) shall 
be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate 
offices of the Secretary of the Interior.
    (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
prohibit mineral leasing of covered land under the Mineral Leasing Act 
(30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 29, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01354-CR

LAURA DE LA CRUZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-24680-U

ORDER

The State’s brief in this case was due to this Court on May 6, 2013. The State had 

previously requested and received an extension of time to file this brief, yet this Court heard 

nothing from the State for almost five months after this extended due date. The State’s silence 

causes concern. Moreover, the State has failed to indicate in its motion that it conferred, or made 

a reasonable attempt to confer, with appellant about the merits of this motion. TEX. R. APP.

P. 10.1. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the Court GRANTS the State’s motion for 

extension of time to file its tendered brief.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0249

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MAKUEEYAPEE WHITFORD,

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 May 14, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 25 2021

03/25/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0249
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF ZAP POWER SYSTEMS FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER
         31,  1996,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
         FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         161,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (16,400)
<INVENTORY>                                    246,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               528,300
<PP&E>                                         158,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 713,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          629,400
<BONDS>                                         28,400
<COMMON>                                     1,019,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (906,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,400
<SALES>                                      1,170,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,170,900
<CGS>                                          862,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  862,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,092,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (815,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (817,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (817,300)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8128

TIMMY RICHARDSON,

Defendant - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-98-290-3)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timmy Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Timmy Richardson appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (1994) motion. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Richardson, No. CR-98-290-3 (E.D. Va.

filed Dec. 12, 2001; entered Dec. 13, 2001). 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
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 of HQ Global Education Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Guangwen He, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:    July 15, 2011


/s/        Guangwen HeGuangwen HeChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

# TIME AND DATE:

11:30 a.m., Monday, July 21, 2008.

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1.  Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.

2.  Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                        You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at                         *http://www.federalreserve.gov*                         for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.                    

      ( print page 40580)    
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 11, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 08-1439 Filed 7-11-08; 3:10 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EX-10.56



 Exhibit 10.56 

September 26, 2014 

SENT VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX 
 Mr. O’Connell
Benjamin 
 Dear Ben: 
 By your signature
below, you agree that Section 9.3(e) of your employment agreement with Authentidate Holding Corp. dated September 30, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”), is hereby modified so as to extend the time within which Authentidate and
you must reach agreement on a renewal of your contract to avoid the automatic termination of your employment, to October 31, 2014. Section 9.3(e) as modified shall read as follows: 

e. In the event the Company fails to notify the Employee in accordance with Section 8.2, or after notifying the Employee fails to reach an
agreement on a new employment agreement prior to October 31, 2014, Employee’s employment shall terminate on October 31, 2014, and the Company shall pay the Employee the Severance Payment; Accrued Compensation, and the Continuation
Benefits. 
 Except as expressly modified and superseded by this Amendment, the terms, covenants, representations, warranties and other
provisions of the Employment Agreement are and shall continue to be in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms. After the date hereof, all references to “this Employment Agreement,” “this Agreement” and
phrases of similar import, shall refer to the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby. 
 Very truly yours, 

/s/ Charles C. Lucas 
 Charles
C. Lucas, 
 Chairman, Management Resources and Compensation Committee 

 

	
	Agreed and accepted:
	
	/s/ O’Connell Benjamin
	  

	O’Connell Benjamin