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

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | TETRAGENEX      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.       |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                             | /s/ Martin F.      Schacker              |
|   |                                                            | Martin      F. Schacker |
|   |                                                            | Co-Chief      Executive Officer |
|   |                                                            |   |
|   | April      15, 2010                              |

----
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6614 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4744 Grand River Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Louise McCauley Parks Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6614 EH

1 SECTION 1. ROSA LOUISE MCCAULEY PARKS POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 4744 Grand River Avenue in De5 troit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Rosa Louise McCauley Parks Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Rosa Louise McCauley 

11 Parks Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 10, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6614 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMcCauley Parks Post Office Building’’. in Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Louise al Service located at 4744 Grand River Avenue
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Annual Revision (426 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 4 [1]
 Item
Revised Growth Rates
Difference betweenrevised and earlier rates(percentage points)2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015Total IP
2.9
2.8
1.9
2.9
.3
-.1
-.1
.0
-.8
-1.0MARKET GROUPConsumer goods
1.2
-1.4
.7
.7
1.4
.0
.0
-.8
-1.5
-.6Durable
4.6
2.1
5.7
4.6
3.9
.1
.1
.2
-2.4
-1.3Nondurable
.4
-2.2
-.6
-.4
.7
.0
-.1
-1.1
-1.3
-.5Business equipment
5.3
9.9
-.2
2.4
.7
.0
.0
.3
-2.4
-1.0Defense and space equipment
-2.9
1.9
-2.9
-2.8
-5.6
-.1
.1
.1
.4
-4.7Construction supplies
2.4
4.3
3.0
3.7
1.4
.0
.0
.1
-.2
-1.2Business supplies
1.0
1.1
1.8
1.5
.3
-.4
-.4
.3
-.3
-.7Materials
4.0
4.0
3.3
4.7
.6
-.2
-.2
.2
-.5
-1.0Non-energy
4.6
2.8
1.8
1.9
.4
-.1
.0
.5
-.6
-1.2Energy
3.1
5.7
5.4
8.2
.6
-.3
-.6
-.3
-.4
-.5INDUSTRY GROUPManufacturing[2]
2.9
2.6
.9
1.3
.8
-.1
-.1
.0
-1.2
-1.1Manufacturing (NAICS)
3.2
2.9
1.1
1.3
1.1
-.1
.0
.0
-1.5
-1.1Durable manufacturing
6.1
5.5
2.1
3.0
.5
-.1
.0
.8
-1.0
-1.5Nondurable manufacturing
.1
.1
.0
-.6
1.7
.0
.0
-.8
-2.0
-.6Other manufacturing (non-NAICS)
-4.7
-5.9
-5.0
-.6
-6.3
-2.0
-3.2
-1.7
5.0
-1.6Mining
5.6
7.4
6.5
11.0
-1.7
.0
-.1
-.1
.2
-.5Utilities
-.3
-2.3
2.3
1.3
-.7
-.2
-.2
-.1
.3
-.6     Return to table   Return to table                 Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
#### Eugene THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-6842.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Eugene Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254*987(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Primoris Services Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter J. Moerbeek, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.

 

In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.

 
| Date:   March 16, 2011 | /s/   PETER J. MOERBEEK                             |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Peter   J. Moerbeek                                 |
| * *                    | *Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer* |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 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 Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Julian Leos v. State.

No. 25176.

February 28, 1951.

*William L. Scarborough,*Corpus Christi, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

■This is a conviction for felony theft; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The property alleged to have been stolen is described in the indictment as “oil field equipment of the value of over $50.00.”

It is, insisted that such an allegation is so general as to be vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and therefore fails to allege the theft of any specific property.

In Howk v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. R. 275, 135 S. W. 2d 719, we held insufficient an allegation describing the property taken as “personal property of the value of six dollars.” Likewise, in Scott v. State, 125 Tex. Cr. R. 396, 67 S. W. 2d 1040, we held insufficient an allegation describing the property as “certain lubricating oil.” See, also, Luce v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 46, 224 S. W. 1095, where the term, “furniture and equipment,” was held insufficient to describe the property taken.

*479We are unable to see where the term, “oil field equipment,” as here used, is more definite or certain than in the cases cited.

It follows that the indictment is fatally defective in the particular mentioned.

The judgment is reversed and prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
| Subsidiary | Jurisdiction of      Formation           |
|------------|------------------------------------------|
| 1.         | EV      Properties GP, LLC               | Delaware |
| 2.         | EV      Properties, L.P.                 | Delaware |
| 3.         | EVCG      GP, LLC                        | Delaware |
| 4.         | CGAS      Properties, L.P.               | Delaware |
| 5.         | EVPP      GP, LLC                        | Delaware |
| 6.         | EnerVest      Production Partners, Ltd.  | Texas |
| 7.         | EnerVest      Cargas, Ltd.               | Texas |
| 8.         | Lower      Cargas Operating Company, LLC | Louisiana |
|       |                                     |   |
|       |                                     |   |
|       |                                     |   |

----
Domestic Violence Lethality

Screen For First Responders

Officer: Date: Case:

Victim: Offender:

Check here if victim did not answer any of the questions.

A "Yes" response to any of Questions #1-3 automatically triggers the protocol referral.

1. Has he/she ever used a weapon against you or threatened you with a weapon?

2. Has he/she threatened to kill you or your children?

3. Do you think he/she might try to kill you?

4. Does he/she have a gun or can he/she get one easily?

5. Has he/she ever tried to choke you?

6. Is he/she violently or constantly jealous or does he/she control most of your daily activities?

7. Have you left him/her or separated after living together or being married?

8. Is he/she unemployed?

9. Has he/she ever tried to kill himself/herself?

10. Do you have a child that he/she knows is not his/hers?

11. Does he/she follow or spy on you or leave threatening messages?

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Negative responses to Questions #1-3, but positive responses to at least four of Questions #4-11, trigger the protocol referral.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

Yes No Not Ans.

An officer may trigger the protocol referral, if not already triggered above, as a result of the victim's response to the below question, 

or whenever the officer believes the victim is in a potentially lethal situation.

Is there anything else that worries you about your safety? (If "yes") What worries you?

Check one: Victim screened in according to the protocol

 Victim screened in based on the belief of officer

 Victim did not screen in

If victim screened in: After advising her/him of a high danger assessment, did the victim speak with the hotline counselor?

 Yes No

Note: The questions above and the criteria for determining the level of risk a person faces is based on the best available research on factors associated with lethal 

violence by a current or former intimate partner. However, each situation may present unique factors that influence risk for lethal violence that are not captured by this 

screen. Although most victims who screen “positive” or “high danger” would not be expected to be killed, these victims face much higher risk than that of other victims of 

intimate partner violence.

MNADV 08/2005
(July 20, 1990)

#### In the Matter of Jonathan E. Cole, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent, *795a Florida attorney, was admitted to the New York Bar in this Department in 1987. Petitioner Committee on Professional Standards moves for an order disciplining respondent pursuant to section 806.19 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.19) by reason of his having been disciplined by the Supreme Court of Florida for an act of professional misconduct committed in Florida. The disciplinary proceedings in Florida resulted in respondent’s suspension for a period of 90 days in that jurisdiction, effective June 1, 1990. Respondent, who is represented by counsel, has advised this court that he does not oppose petitioner’s motion.

The Florida disciplinary proceeding arose from respondent’s attempt to purchase cocaine from a police undercover agent in July, 1989. As a result of this, he was arrested and charged with attempted possession of cocaine, a misdemeanor. After an investigation of his background, the State Attorney offered and respondent accepted a deferred prosecution agreement. Respondent complied with the terms of the agreement and the State Attorney filed a formal statement that he would not prosecute the matter further on March 1, 1990. At or about this time in the Florida disciplinary proceeding, respondent entered into a consent judgment with the Florida Bar wherein it was agreed that he would be suspended for 90 days and placed on probation for three years for his misconduct in attempting to purchase cocaine. This agreement was approved by the Referee and, ultimately, by the Supreme Court of Florida, which suspended respondent for 90 days, effective June 1, 1990.

After examining the entire record before us, we accept the finding of professional misconduct made by the Supreme Court of Florida *(see,*22 NYCRR 806.19 [c]; *Matter of Apovian,*140 AD2d 736). It is our further opinion that the interests of justice will be served by imposing upon respondent the same punishment in this State as was imposed in the State of Florida *(see, supra).*

Respondent suspended for 90 days and until further order of this court, the period of suspension to correspond with the period of suspension imposed in the State of Florida. Respondent may apply for reinstatement upon furnishing satisfactory proof that he has been reinstated as a member of the Florida Bar and has otherwise complied with the requirements of section 806.12 of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.12). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
#### Mrs. Alice PROBST v. SMITH HARDWARE COMPANY, Limited.

No. 973.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit

May 3, 1932.

Milner & Porteous, of New Orleans, and Thos. M. & Jas. T. Burns, of Covington, for appellant.

H. E. & F. B. Ellis, of Covington, and H. W. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, for the reasons stated in the case of Franz H. Probst v. Smith Hardware Co. (La. App.) 141 So. 508, it is ordered and decreed that the judgment be avoided and annulled; that plaintiff’s demand be rejected at her own cost.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF  PENN-PACIFIC  CORPORATION  AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS  OF  OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       95
<OTHER-SE>                                     (115)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### James Arroyo, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jessica A. Arroyo, Deceased, and as Father and Natural Guardian of James Arroyo, Jr., an Infant, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Dontzin, J.), entered January 12, 1989, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Siblings, 2 and 3 years old, were admitted to Bellevue Hospital for treatment of lead poisoning. They were placed in adjacent beds and intravenously administered calcium EDTA solution. The younger female sibling went into cardiac arrest and died, allegedly due to a failure to properly control the rate of flow of the solution by use of an infusion pump, thereby causing a sharp drop in blood pressure. It is alleged that the older male sibling observed his sister’s physical distress and contemporaneously feared for his own safety. The third cause of action seeks recovery for the surviving older sibling’s psychic injuries caused by this experience, while the fourth cause of action is a derivative one by the parent for loss of the surviving sibling’s services.

We agree that under the restrictive approach enunciated by the Court of Appeals, the claims do not state causes of action. In order to recover for psychic injury, such a plaintiff must contemporaneously witness the injury or death of an immediate family member and fear for his own safety as a result of being within the zone of danger created by defendant’s negligence, which creates a threat of bodily harm to both the victim of the physical injury and the eyewitness *(Bovsun v Sanperi,*61 NY2d 219). This test has been stringently applied *10to the area of medical malpractice *(Johnson v Jamaica Hosp.,*62 NY2d 523; *London v New York Hosp.,*65 NY2d 639; *Tebbutt v Virostek,*65 NY2d 931; *Farago v Shulman,*65 NY2d 763). Where the siblings were treated with discrete intravenous systems, we are unable to accept plaintiffs attempt to characterize the threat of bodily injury to the older sibling and the breach of defendant’s duty of care as to him as identical to that posed to and suffered by the younger sibling. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
:Base crimestat.hlp
1 CrimeStat overview
2 About CrimeStat=HIDD_ABOUTBOX
2 License Agreement and Disclaimer=HIDD_AGREEMENT
2 How to....=HOW_TO
2 Program contents=HIDD_PSTAT_DIALOG
1 CrimeStat sections
2 Program contents=HIDD_PSTAT_DIALOG
2 Data Setup=HIDD_DATA_SETUP
2 Primary file=PRIMARY_FILE
2 Secondary file=SECONDARY_FILE
2 Reference file=REFERENCE_FILE
2 Measurement parameters=HIDD_INPUT_MEASURE
2 Spatial Description=HIDD_SPATIAL_DESCRIPTION
2 Spatial distribution=HIDD_INPUT_SPATIAL_DIST
2 Spatial autocorrelation=HIDD_SPATIAL_AUTOCORRELATION
2 Distance analysis I =HIDD_INPUT_DIST_ANALYSIS_I
2 Distance analysis II =HIDD_INPUT_DIST_ANALYSIS_II
2 'Hot spot' analysis I=HIDD_INPUT_HOTSPOT_ANALYSIS
2 'Hot spot' analysis II=HIDD_INPUT_HOTSPOT_ANALYSIS_II
2 Hot Spot Analysis of Zones=HIDD_HOT_SPOT_ANALYSIS_OF_ZONES
2 Spatial Modeling I=HIDD_SPATIAL_MODELING_I
2 Interpolation I=HIDD_INPUT_INTERPOLATION_I
2 Interpolation II=HIDD_INPUT_INTERPOLATION_II
2 Space time analysis=HIDD_SPACE_TIME_ANALYSIS
2 Journey to crime=HIDD_JOURNEY_TO_CRIME
2 Bayesian Journey to crime=HIDD_BAYESIAN_JOURNEY_TO_CRIME
2 Spatial Modeling II=HIDD_SPATIAL_MODELING_II
2 Regression I=HIDD_REGRESSION_I
2 Regression II=HIDD_REGRESSION_II
2 Discrete Choice I=HIDD_DISCRETE_CHOICE_I
2 Discrete Choice II=HIDD_DISCRETE_CHOICE_II
2 Time series forecasting=HIDD_TIME_SERIES_FORECASTING
2 Crime travel demand=HIDD_CRIME_TRAVEL_DEMAND
2 Project directory =HIDD_PROJECT_DIRECTORY
2 Trip generation=HIDD_TRIP_GENERATION
3 Calibrate model=HIDD_CALIBRATE_MODEL
3 Make prediction=HIDD_MAKE_PREDICTION
3 Balance origins with destinations=HIDD_BALANCE_ORIGINS_DESTINATIONS
2 Trip distribution=HIDD_TRIP_DISTRIBUTION
3 Describe origin-destination trips=HIDD_DESCRIBE_OD_TRIPS
3 Setup origin-destination model=HIDD_SETUP_OD_MODEL
3 Origin-destination model=HIDD_OD_MODEL
3 Compare observed & predicted trips=HIDD_COMPARE_OBSERVED_PREDICTED_TRIPS
2 Mode split=HIDD_MODE_SPLIT
3 Setup mode split model=HIDD_SETUP_MODE_SPLIT
3 Calibrate mode split I=HIDD_CALIBRATE_MODE_SPLIT1
3 Calibrate mode split II=HIDD_CALIBRATE_MODE_SPLIT1
3 Calibrate mode split III=HIDD_CALIBRATE_MODE_SPLIT1
2 Network assignment=HIDD_NETWORK_ASSIGNMENT
2 File worksheet=HIDD_FILE_WORKSHEET
2 Options=HIDD_OPTIONS
1 How to....
2 Input a primary file=HIDD_INPUT_PRIMARY
2 Input a secondary file=HIDD_INPUT_SECONDARY
2 Define a reference grid=HIDD_DEFINE_REFERENCE
2 Define measurement parameters=HIDD_MEASUREMENT_PARAMETERS
2 Select statistical operations=HIDD_SELECT_STATISTICS
2 Output results=HIDD_OUTPUT_RESULTS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TETRAGENEX
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment
No. 2) for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin
F. Schacker, Co-Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.



TETRAGENEX
          PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:
      /s/
          Martin F. SchackerMartin F. SchackerCo-Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 8, 2008


---