alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Instructions for Summer School Travel 

Reimbursement

In order to be reimbursed for summer school you will need to either email the NCNR 

User Office a copy of your receipts to ncnraccess@nist.gov or fax them to 301-975-2351. 

Below you will find a checklist of possible receipts you may have. 

Once your receipts have been received, a travel voucher will be processed. You will 

have a chance to review before finalizing. You will receive an email with the travel 

voucher attached that you will need to sign and either email or fax back to the User 

Office. 

Please send a copy of your receipts ASAP. The sooner you return your 

receipts the quicker you will be reimbursed. 

Receipts you may have:

___ Receipt from taxi to and from airport

___ Parking receipt from airport

___ Hotel receipt

___ Car rental and gas receipts (for rental only)

___ Receipts from any tolls you paid or amount paid if no receipt was given

___ Receipt from registration fee 

___ Receipts for any other expenses (excluding food)

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks,

Becky Ogg

NCNR User Office

301-975-4997

ncnraccess@nist.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WACHALA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ASTELLAS US LLC, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-03882

Hon. Martha M. Pacold

CLASS ACTION

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs move this Court for final approval of the Class Action Settlement and move the 

Court for the entry of the submitted proposed Final Order. Defendants do not oppose the granting 

of this motion.

This motion is supported by Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (Doc. 226); this Court’s Order preliminarily approving 

this Settlement (Doc. 231); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Case Contribution Awards for Named 

Plaintiffs (Doc. 233); the Declaration of Analytics Consulting LLC, the Settlement 

Administrator; the Statement of Gallagher Fiduciary Advisors, LLC, serving as the Independent 

Fiduciary, approving the Settlement, including attorneys’ fees and expenses (attached to 

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum as Exhibit 1); and Plaintiffs’ accompanying Memorandum in Support 

of Final Approval. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03882 Document #: 236 Filed: 10/19/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:11473
2

October 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP

/s/ Troy A. Doles 

Jerome J. Schlichter

Troy A. Doles

Heather Lea

Kurt C. Struckhoff 

100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200

St. Louis, MO, 63102

(314) 621-6115

(314) 621-5934 (fax)

jschlichter@uselaws.com

tdoles@uselaws.com

hlea@uselaws.com

kstruckhoff@uselaws.com

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C.

Luke DeGrand

Tracey L. Wolfe

20 S. Clark Street, Ste. 2620

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 236-9200

(312) 236-9201 (fax)

ldegrand@degrandwolfe.com

twolfe@degrandwolfe.com

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-03882 Document #: 236 Filed: 10/19/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:11474
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to 

the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on October 19, 

2023.

/s/ Troy A. Doles

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03882 Document #: 236 Filed: 10/19/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:11475
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                             SUBSIDIARIES OF AVIALL



Aviall, Inc.  [Delaware]

    Inventory Locator Service GP, Inc.*   [Tennessee]

         ILS Investor, Inc.*   [Delaware]

    Aviall Services, Inc.  [Delaware]

         Aviall Product Repair Services, Inc.  [Delaware]

             Aviall (UK) Limited  [England]

         Aviall Pte Ltd  [Singapore]

         Aviall Foreign Sales Corporation  [Barbados]

         Aviall Asia Limited  [Hong Kong]

         Aviall Airstocks Limited  [Hong Kong]

         Aviall (Canada) Ltd.  [Ontario]

         Aviall de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.  [Mexico]

         Aviall of Texas GmbH  [Germany]

         Aviall S.A.R.L.  [France]

         Aviall Australia Pty Ltd  [Australia]

             Mulayl Pty Ltd  [Australia]

             Van Dusen Aircraft Supplies Ltd  [Australia]

         Aviall New Zealand Limited  [New Zealand]

*   Inventory Locator Service GP, Inc. is the sole general partner and ILS
    Investor, Inc. is the sole limited partner of Inventory Locator Service,
    LP, a Delaware limited partnership.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4047 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4047

     To require the National Park Service to make necessary safety 
 improvements to the Statue of Liberty and to reopen the Statue to the 
                                public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2004

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the National Park Service to make necessary safety 
 improvements to the Statue of Liberty and to reopen the Statue to the 
                                public.

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

SECTION 1. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Save the 
Statue of Liberty Act''.
    (b) Requirement for Safety Improvements.--Not later than September 
1, 2004, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National 
Park Service and using funds available to the Secretary for this 
purpose, shall commence necessary safety and other related improvements 
to the Statue of Liberty so that it may be reopened to the public.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certify, 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/ G. Peter DAloia                             
|G. Peter DAloia                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

July 25, 2006
#### Hillman *v.*Farmers State Bank *et al.*

No. 6448.

January 17, 1929.

Atkinson, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case relates to the same trial as the case in *Bank of Lumpkin*v. *Farmers State Bank,*ante.

1. The charge upon which error is assigned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth grounds of the motion for new trial stated correct principles of law applicable to the pleadings and evidence, and was not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned.

2. Upon all other assignments of error the case is controlled by the rulings in *Bank of Lumpkin*v. *Farmers State Bank,*supra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bussell, G. J., dissenting.*
<PAGE>   1





EXHIBIT 11.0           COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               (UNAUDITED, IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED        NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                  -------------------      --------------------
                                                  MAY 30,    MAY 31,       MAY 30,     MAY 31, 
                                                   1998      1997 (a)       1998       1997 (a)
<S>                                                <C>           <C>        <C>         <C>  
BASIC:                                                          (b)                      (b)
  Weighted average common shares outstanding       5,080         279        5,075       5,504
  Income from continuing operations              $ 3,267     $ 3,325      $ 5,542     $ 5,849
  Discontinued operations                             --        (549)          --      (1,468)
  Net Income                                     $ 3,267     $ 2,776      $ 5,542     $ 4,381
Per share amounts:
  Income from continuing operations              $  0.64     $  0.63      $  1.09     $  1.06
  Discontinued operations                             --       (0.10)          --       (0.26)
  Net Income                                     $  0.64     $  0.53      $  1.09     $  0.80

DILUTED:                                                        (b)                      (b)
  Weighted average common shares outstanding       5,080       5,279        5,075       5,504
  Weighted average dilutive potential common
   shares outstanding                                230          47          147         119
  Total                                            5,310       5,326        5,222       5,623

  Income from continuing operations              $ 3,267     $ 3,325      $ 5,542     $ 5,849
  Discontinued operations                             --        (549)          --      (1,468)
  Net Income                                     $ 3,267     $ 2,776      $ 5,542     $ 4,381
Per share amounts:
  Income from continuing operations              $  0.62     $  0.62      $  1.06     $  1.04
  Discontinued operations                             --       (0.10)          --       (0.26)
  Net Income                                     $  0.62     $  0.52      $  1.06     $  0.78
</TABLE>


(a)  Restated for discontinued operations reported in the fourth quarter, 1997
(b)  Restated to conform with the provisions of Statement of Financial 
     Accounting Standards No. 128, Earnings Per Share
Exhibit 23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:





•
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134061) pertaining to the
Symmetry Medical Inc. UK Share Incentive Plan 2006,





•
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123610) pertaining to the
Symmetry Medical Inc. 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,





•
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123609) pertaining to the
Symmetry Medical Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, the
Symmetry Medical Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan and the Symmetry
Medical Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan, and





•
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123607) pertaining to the
Symmetry Medical Inc. 401(k) plan;





of our
reports dated March 5, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Symmetry Medical Inc. and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Symmetry Medical Inc., included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ending January 2, 2010.




/s/
      Ernst and Young, LLP


Indianapolis,
IN


March 5,
2010
#### WILKES NATIONAL BANK v. HALVORSEN

No. 259P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 179

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
#### J. J. Roach *v.*James Hoover, etc.

Principal and Agent — Power of Attorney — inability to Understand Meaning and Effect.

The evidence was held to show that the party who is alleged to have executed a power of attorney did not understand the effect and meaning of it, on account of his great age, his 'inability to read the instrument, and because of the difficulty of making him hear what was. said to him.

APPEAL FROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT.

February 22, 1873.

*Chelf, for appellant.*

Howell, *for appellee.*

Opinion" by

Judge Peters :

The writing under which Hoover professed to act in executing the mortgage on Wm. McDaniels’ land specified no particular object, but gave Hoover unrestricted power over his estate, and was unlimited in duration, and if it does not carry intrinsic evidence of a want of capacity in McDaniel at the time to comprehend the nature and effect of the business, that, together with his great age, bodily afflictions, his inability to read the instrument and the difficulty of making him hear what was said to him' on account of his deafness, renders the conclusion irresistible that Wm. McDaniel did not understand the effect and meaning of the instrument when he told Killen, the witness to it, that it was all right. And Killen himself does not prove that McDaniel was at the time of capacity to understand what he was doing.

We therefore conclude that the judgment of the court below is fully sustained by the evidence, and it must be *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Symmetry Medical Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-K, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Fred Hite, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Corporation.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                                             
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 25, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    FRED HITE                                            
|               |  |  |  | Fred Hite                                                   
|               |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Exhibit 32

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 Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for the  period ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Robert W. Marsik, Chief
Executive/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 the best
of my  knowledge and belief:

|(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: February
27, 2007/s/  Robert W. Marsik
Robert W. Marsik
President
(Principal Executive and
Financial Officer)

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating,  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of  this written statement 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.

---
Exhibit 31.2

 

Rule 13a – 14(a)/15(d) – 14(a)

 

I, Gordon Samson, certify that:
|   | 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cascade Energy Inc.; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and 

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date:  June 30, 2006
|   | /s/ Gordon Samson |  
 

Gordon Samson

 
 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

  |
|--------|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
9920.

#### Williams *v.*The State.

Decided December 3, 1918.

Indictment for murder; from Walton superior court—Judge Cobb. May 15, 1918.

1. In the motion for a new trial the charge of the' court on the law of manslaughter was complained of on the ground that the evidence did not authorize instructions on that subject.

3. The 5th ground of the motion was: “That the court erred in excluding from the jury the following evidence of J. L. Gibson, a witness for the defendant, to wit: Question: ‘Mr. Gibson, where did you first see Paul Williams [the defendant] after this crime was committed?’ ‘He came up here and gave himself up.’ This evidence was objected to by the solicitor-general and was ruled out by the court, as a self-serving declaration; which the movant contends was error and harmful to the defendant; defendant’s counsel stating that it was offered for the purpose of showing that the defendant surrendered^ himself to the deputy sheriff, Mr. Gibson, the witness, before a warrant was issued for him.”

3. . On the subject of flight the court charged the jury as follows: “Plight of one accused of crime, if shown to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, may be considered by the jury, for the jury to determine whether, undfer all the circumstances, an inference of conscious guilt should be drawn from such flight, if proven. But flight is subject to explanation, .and the weight to be given it, and whether the jury will draw an inference of consciousness of guilt or not, is for the jury. It is for the jury to determine whether the flight of the defendant, if flight has been shown by the evidence, was due to a sense of guilt or to other reasons; and if the.jury are satisfied that-flight has been shown, but that it was due to other reasons than a consciousness of guilt, then no prejudicial inference should be drawn by the jury from *130such, flight.” In the motion for a new trial it is contended that “the evidence was not sufficient to justify this charge to the jury, and the same was harmful to the defendant.”

*129Broyles, P. J.

1. The evidence submitted in behalf of the accused amply authorized the charge of the court upon voluntary manslaughter.

2. As presented by the 5th ground of the motion for a new trial, the ex elusion of the testimony set out therein -was not error.

3. Under the facts of the case the charge of the court upon the subject of flight was not error.

4. The verdict finding the accused gujlty of voluntary manslaughter was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to. grant a new tidal.

*Judgment affirmed'.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*

*130
      *Orrin Roberts,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. O. Dean, solicitor-general,*contra.
MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                   Exhibit 12

                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.<PAGE>





                               MAYTAG CORPORATION
                                   Exhibit 12
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                (Amounts in thousands of dollars except ratios)


                                       Year Ended December 31
                         1999       1998        1997       1996       1995

   Consolidated
   pretax
   income from
   continuing
   operations before
   minority interest
   and extraordinary
   item               $ 530,851  $ 470,885   $ 300,555  $ 228,237  $  59,804

   Interest expense      59,259     62,765      58,995     43,006     52,087

   Depreciation of
   capitalized
   interest               2,750      2,952       2,530      1,553      1,695

   Interest portion
   of rental expense      7,740      7,764       6,989      6,448      8,789

   Earnings           $ 600,600  $ 544,366   $ 369,069  $ 279,244  $ 122,375


   Interest expense   $  59,259  $  62,765   $  58,995  $  43,006  $  52,087

   Interest
   capitalized               72         17       4,191      8,905      2,534

   Interest portion
   of rental expense      7,740      7,764       6,989      6,448      8,789

   Fixed charges      $  67,071  $  70,546   $  70,175  $  58,359  $  63,410


   Ratio of earnings
   to fixed charges        8.95       7.72        5.26       4.78       1.93
   <PAGE>