alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
  In connection with the Annual Report of Lorus Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Elizabeth Williams, Director of Finance and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; 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:  November 28, 2011
  /s/ Elizabeth Williams
 Elizabeth Williams
 Director of Finance and Acting Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                          Independent Auditor's Consent


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Diametrics Medical, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-69094, 333-63689, 333-63687, 333-51951, 333-33257, 333-24169,
333-24167, 333-24079 and 33-83572) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of Diametrics Medical,
Inc., of our reports dated January 29, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Diametrics Medical, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31,
2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 and the related schedule,
which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Diametrics Medical,
Inc.


                                       /s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 27, 2002
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2244

Cedar Electronics Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### BENJAMIN N. BALDWIN v. RUSSELL NOLAN PERRY

(Filed 10 January, 1958.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Craven, Special Judge,*and a jury, January, 1957, Civil Term of Orange.

*James R. Farlow for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J. Q. LeGrand for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

This is a civil action in tort involving a motor vehicle collision at a street intersection in Chapel Hill. The jury answered the issues of negligence and contributory negligence in the affirmative, and from judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff’s assignments of error have been examined with care. They involve only the application of established principles of law which need no further elaboration or discussion. Prejudicial error has not been made to appear. The trial and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3899

Holroyd Precision Rotors, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Louis LaSorsa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Phoenix Color Corp. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant ("the Report"):

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
            the Securities and 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 Registrant.


/s/ Louis LaSorsa
------------------------------
Louis LaSorsa, Chairman
November 13, 2003

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report.

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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 398 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 398

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that utility line 
          technicians qualify as emergency response providers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 23, 2021

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that utility line 
          technicians qualify as emergency response providers.

    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 ``Linemen Legacy Act''.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS.

    Section 2(6) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(6)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``includes Federal'' and inserting 
        ``includes--
                    ``(A) Federal'';
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) utility line technicians responding to a 
                major disaster or an emergency declared by the 
                President under section 501 of the Robert T. Stafford 
                Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
                5191).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99

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 EBS Building, LLC (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith F. Cooper, Senior Managing Director of the Manager of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
of the Company.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Keith F. Cooper                                                                                   
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Keith F. Cooper, Senior Managing Director
FTI Consulting, as Manager EBS Building, L.L.C.
May 15, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6890]



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



COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Pennsylvania Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the Commission will be held on 
Saturday, April 8, 1995, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Sheraton 
University City, 36th and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19102. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct project planning for 
the current term, elect officers, and provide orientation for newly 
appointed members.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Edward Darden, Acting Director of the 
Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, March 13, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-6890 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### John Robert ROBINSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 183-90, 184-90.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 17, 1992.

Bruce Anton, Dallas, for appellant.

John Vance, Dist. Atty., and Donald G. Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MILLER, Judge.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to two indictments charging him with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance analogue. V.A.C.S. Art. 4476-15, Sec. 3.10 (repealed, now Health & Safety Code § 481.123). Upon stipulated evidence, appellant was found guilty in a trial before the court and was assessed a five year sentence in each case, as well as fines of $1500 and $1250. On direct appeal, appellant raised three points of error and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. *Robinson v. State,*783 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989). We granted appellant’s petition on two grounds for review, to-wit: (1) whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the phrase “substantially similar” is not unconstitutionally vague, as contained in Art. 4476-15, Sec. 3.10; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in failing to take judicial notice of *Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Administration,*828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987), and the Merck Index. We will affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

We have reviewed that part of the court of appeals’ opinion dealing with the merits of the constitutionality of the statute and the judicial notice issue.1 We find the reasoning of the court of appeals is sound. We therefore adopt that part of the opinion as our own, without further comment. *January v. State,*732 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).

Appellant’s grounds for review are overruled, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

CLINTON, BAIRD and BENAVIDES, JJ., concur in the result.

MALONEY, J., not participating.

1

. *Robinson,*783 S.W.2d at 650, column 1, second full paragraph, to p. 653, column 2, end of first full paragraph.
Exhibit 10.29****

 

**First Amendment to the**

 

**BlackRock, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan**

 

1. Section 1(n) of the BlackRock, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of the datehereof, to read in its entirety as follows: 

 

“*CompanyPeer Group*” means those companies reported in the Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated Asset Manager Valuation Report (Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.; Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.; AMVESCAP PLC; FranklinResources, Inc.; BlackRock, Inc.; Eaton Vance Corp.; Federated Investors, Inc.; Gabelli Asset Management Inc.; Janus Capital Group; John Nuveen Co.; Legg Mason, Inc.; Neuberger Berman Inc.; T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; Waddell & Reed Financial,Inc.; and W.P. Stewart & Co. Ltd. as of November 12, 2003), taking into account any addition or removal of companies as shall be made by Merrill Lynch (or such entity, that shall not be affiliated with the Company, that publishes a report onsuch universe if Merrill Lynch ceases to publish the report), *provided* that the performance of such added or removed companies shall be pro-rated through, or commencing on, respectively, the date that any such companies are removed or added.In the event that the Merrill Lynch Asset Manager Valuation Report loses three or more members after the Effective Date, then the Committee shall hire a nationally recognized independent compensation consultant to determine an equitable adjustmentto the Company Peer Group, if any. 

 

2. Section 1(bb)(i) of thePlan is hereby amended in its entirety, effective as of the date BlackRock, Inc. obtains stockholder approval and any other required approvals for this amendment, to read as follows: 

 

(i) 100%, if the average closing price of Common Stock is equal to or in excess of $62 per share for (A) any period of onecalendar quarter during the period commencing January 1, 2005 and ending December 31, 2006, or (B) any period of three months commencing prior to and including December 31, 2006, whichever is earlier; or 

 

3. In all other respects the Plan is hereby confirmed. 

 

Dated this 12th day of November, 2003.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Watson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome W. Marks, J., at *Wade*hearing, nonjury trial and sentence), rendered November 10, 1986, convicting defendant of rape in the first degree and robbery in the the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant claims he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Federal and State constitutional rights, because of counsel’s failure to request a *Sandoval*ruling and move for recusal. These two claims, by themselves, are insufficient for a finding that counsel had failed to provide "meaningful misrepresentation” within the meaning of *People v Baldi*(54 NY2d 137, 147; *see also, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705). Moreover, counsel’s failure created no prejudice, since the court’s exposure to the alleged prejudicial information was *361acquired through the court’s performance of its adjudicative responsibilities and a court is generally deemed " 'uniquely capable of distinguishing the issues and of making an objective determination’ based upon appropriate legal criteria, despite awareness of facts which cannot properly be relied upon in making the decision *(People v Brown,*24 NY2d 168, 172)”. *(People v Moreno,*70 NY2d 403, 406.) Thus, the court’s exposure to the full breadth of defendant’s criminal past, to which it would, in any event, have been exposed had a *Sandoval*motion been made and ruled upon, and to the alleged hearsay testimony arising out of the *Wade*hearing, did not preclude defendant from obtaining an objective determination. *(Supra; People v Porr,*160 AD2d 507.)

We also reject defendant’s claim that his jury waiver, pursuant to CPL 320.10 (2), did not comply with the statutory requirements. The record fully supports the view that defendant’s waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. There is no requirement of a uniform mandatory catechism as a prerequisite to reach such a conclusion, just as one is not required in determining the propriety of entry of a guilty plea. *(People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, 353.) Furthermore, given defendant’s familiarity with the criminal justice system, the fact that he was represented by counsel and that relevant inquiry was made of him by the court, we are satisfied that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made. *(People v McQueen,*52 NY2d 1025.)

Last, defendant’s execution of the written jury waiver conformed to the requirements of CPL 320.10 (2), although dated prior to acceptance by the court. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00332-CV

MATTHEW KNORR, Appellant

V.

MARILYNN MARIE KNORR, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 231st District 

Court

of Tarrant County (231-448419-08)

September 23, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellant Matthew Knorr shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 13778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6325]



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


NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Friday, March 17, 1995.

PLACE: Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1325 G Street, N.W., 
Suite 800, Board Room, Washington, D.C. 20005.

STATUS: Open.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jeffrey T. Bryson, General 
Counsel/Secretary 202/376-2441.

Agenda

I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes:
    December 16, 1994
III. Audit Committee Report:
    February 22, 1995, Meeting
    a. Receive FY 1994 Audit Report from Outside Auditors
    b. Selection of Outside Auditors
    c. Proposed Revisions to the Corporate Investment Policy
IV. Budget Committee Report:
    February 23, 1995, Meeting
    a. Proposed FY 1995 Budget Revisions
V. Treasurer's Report
VI. Executive Director's Quarterly Management Report
VII. Adjourn
Veronica D. Dean
Assistant Secretary/Paralegal.
[FR Doc. 95-6325 Filed 3-10-95; 10:01 am]
BILLING CODE 7570-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7101]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL115-6791b; FRL-5166-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 
proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
request submitted by the State of Illinois on October 25, 1994, for the 
purpose of lowering the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline from 9.0 
pounds per square inch (psi) to 7.2 psi for the Metro-East St. Louis 
(Metro-East) ozone nonattainment area which includes Madison, Monroe, 
and St. Clair Counties. In the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, the USEPA is approving this action as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because USEPA views this as a noncontroversial 
action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for 
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse 
comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no further 
activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If USEPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. USEPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before 
April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch 
(AR18-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are 
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Regulation 
Development Branch (AR18-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Acevedo, Regulation 
Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the 
direct final rule published in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: February 23, 1995.
Robert Springer,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7101 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P