alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NIST-461

(REV. 10-2003)

ADMAN 7.02

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

INTERDIVISION WORK ORDER

ADMINISTRATION/IPSG ELECTRONIC FORM

UNLESS EXPLICITLY AGREED OTHERWISE; THE WORKING DIVISION WILL TAKE REASONABLE CARE TO AVOID CHARGES IN EXCESS OF THE

AMOUNT AUTHORIZED, AND WILL INFORM THE ISSUING OFFICER IF THE WORK CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THAT AMOUNT. FOR CHANGE

ORDERS (REVISIONS TO WORK ORDER), COMPLETE ALL BOXES.

REQUISITION NUMBER CHANGE NUMBER DATE DATE NEEDED

AUTHORIZED CHARGES

$

OR ESTIMATE REQUESTED

OLD AMOUNT + OR - NEW AMOUNT

CHANGE IN AUTHORIZED CHARGES

NAME

FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT

TELEPHONE EXTENSION BUILDING ROOM

*FUND CODE FISCAL YEAR (FISCAL YEAR OF FUNDING) DISTRIBUTION: 4 COPIES WITH REQUEST; 1 COPY REQUESTING DIVISION.

SPECIFICATIONS

BUREAU

(xx)

OBJECT CLASS

(xx-xx-xx-xx)

ORGANIZATION

(xx-xx-xxxx-xx-xx-xx-xx)

PROJECT-TASK

(xxxxxxx-xxx)

FCFY*

(xx)

CREDIT (INCOME)

TO FROM AUTHORIZED BY (NAME AND SIGNATURE)

DEBIT (EXPENSE)

OBJECT CLASS

(xx-xx-xx-xx)

ORGANIZATION

(xx-xx-xxxx-xx-xx-xx-xx)

PROJECT-TASK

(xxxxxxx-xxx)

FCFY*

(xx)

BUREAU

(xx)

57

57

REQUISITION NUMBER AUTHORIZED BY (NAME AND SIGNATURE)

WORK ORDER NUMBER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000065195
<NAME>                        Mestek, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,529
<INVENTORY>                                     51,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,291
<PP&E>                                          84,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           479
<OTHER-SE>                                     117,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,117
<SALES>                                        310,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,778
<CGS>                                          223,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  233,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,888
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,405
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.61
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2



I, Anthony E. Applebaum, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;



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



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.  The Company'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 have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

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



c)

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



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



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company'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 Company's internal controls; and



6.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether 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:   September 14, 2007



/s/ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM

Anthony E. Applebaum

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
11021.

#### Sapp *v.*The State.

Decided January 28, 1920.

Luke, J.

Under the ruling in *Griffin*v. *Sisson,*146 *Ga.*661 (92 S. E. 278), a court, to be like the city court of Atlanta or Savannah, must not only be located at a county seat which has been incorporated as a city, but must have jurisdiction to try criminal cases below the grade of felony and civil jurisdiction over a portion or all of those classes of cases the jurisdiction of which is not by the constitution exclusively vested in some other court, with territorial jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases throughout the limits of the county, or jurisdiction in one class of cases limited to the city, and in the other class coextensive with the limits of the county, with a jury of twelve to try all cases, both civil and criminal, if a trial by jury is demanded. In the instant case it appears that the city criminal court of Alma has no civil jurisdiction whatever; therefore a writ of error from that court will not lie to this court, notwithstanding a contrary provision in the act establishing the city criminal court of Alma.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Broyles,*O. *J., and Bloodwortb, J., concur.*

*713Accusation of misdemeanor; from criminal court of Alma— Judge Boatright. July 18, 1919.

*Hartwell L. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. J. MacIntyre, solicitor,*contra.
10611.

#### Boatright *v.*Eason, guardian.

Luice, J.

1. The city court of Blackshear has jurisdiction of the trial of proceedings to evict a tenant holding over. See Acts 1911, p. 211; *Dorough*v. *Morris,*21 *Ga. App.*477 (94 S. E. 641), and cases cited.

2. The proceeding authorized by section 5382 et seq. of the Civil Code (1910) is not for the trial of title to land. The sole purpose of this section is a determination of the right of possession between one claiming to be a landlord, on one side, and a person claimed by him to be his tenant, on the other side. See *Jordan*v. *Jordan,*103 *Ga.*483 (30 S. E. 265); *Bullard*v. *Hudson,*125 *Ga.*393 (54 S. E. 132); *Grizzard*v. *Roberts,*110 *Ga.*41 (35 S. E. 291); *Willis*v. *Harrell,*118 *Ga.*906 (45 S. E. 794).

3. Questions of law not raised in the trial court can not be raised here for the first time.

*(a)*The warrant in this case was proceeding in the name of a guardian for his ward, and issue was joined by the defendant as such; and the point can not for the first time be raised here, by the brief of the plaintiff in error, that the guardian did not introduce in evidence his letters of *365guardianship; no such question having been raised by plea in the trial court as would put the plaintiff in the court below to such proof. See *Hazelhurst*v. *Morrison,*48 *Ga.*397; *Western*& *Atlantic Railroad Co.*v. *Harris,*128 *Ga.*394 (57 S. E. 722).

Decided November 5, 1919.

Eviction; from city court of Blaeksliear—W. A. Milton, judge pro hac vice. March 30, 1919.

*W. W. Benneli,*for plaintiff in error.

*Memory & Memory,*contra.

4. The trial judge, who by agreement heard the case without the aid of a jury, did not err in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
| 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:  March      20, 2008 |                                                |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                |
|                                 | /s/      Anthony J. Miceli                          |
|                                 | Anthony      J. Miceli                              |
|                                 | Chairman,      President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Clinical Center; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Board of Scientific Counselors of the NIH Clinical Center.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the CLINICAL 
CENTER, including consideration of personnel qualifications and 
performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors of the NIH 
Clinical Center.
    Date: January 5-6, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.; 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate the Bioethics Department.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 4-2551, 10 
Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Mary Sparks, Nurse Consultant for the Deputy 
Director for Clinical Care, Office of the Deputy Director, Clinical 
Center, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 6-3521, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-3515.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.

    Dated: December 1, 2014.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28527 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### Amira MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 03-2327.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 15, 2004.

Decided Oct. 19, 2004.

Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., Becker, Ha-deed, Kellogg & Berry, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Thomas H. Tousley, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Amira Mohammed, a native and citizen of Ethiopia of Eritrean ethnicity, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.

On appeal, Mohammed raises challenges to the IJ’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Mohammed fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Mohammed seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Mohammed’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. *Chen v. INS,*195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant *857must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” *INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,*480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Because Mohammed fails to show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

Finally, we conclude Mohammed has waived her argument that the IJ erred when she issued an alternative order of removal because Mohammed did not raise this issue before the Board. *See Selgeka v. Carroll,*184 F.3d 337, 345 (4th Cir.1999); *Farrokhi v. INS,*900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir.1990).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit (21)
                     THE MIDLAND COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                Exhibit (21) - Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                              December 31, 1997

        The subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 1997, all of which
are included in the consolidated financial statements, are as follows:

                                                                   Percentage
                                                    State of        of Voting
                                                 Incorporation     Stock Owned
                                                -------------------------------
M/G Transport Services, Inc.                         Ohio              100
Midland-Guardian Co.                                 Ohio              100
MGT Services, Inc.                                   Ohio              100
M/G Sportswear, Inc.                                 Ohio              100

SUBSIDIARY OF M/G TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.
MGA Transport Company                                Ohio              100

SUBSIDIARIES OF MIDLAND-GUARDIAN CO.
American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.                Ohio              100
Marbury Agency, Inc.                                 Ohio              100

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE
 GROUP, INC.
American Modern Home Insurance Company               Ohio              100
American Family Home Insurance Company              Florida            100
The Atlas Insurance Agency, Inc.                     Ohio              100
American Modern Life Insurance Company               Ohio              100
Midwest Enterprises, Inc.                           Florida            100
Lloyds Modern Corporation                            Texas             100
American Modern Home Service Company                 Ohio              100

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE CO.
American Modern Lloyds Insurance Company             Texas             100
American Southern Home Insurance Company            Florida            100
American Western Home Insurance Company            Oklahoma            100
G.U.I.C. Insurance Company                       Pennsylvania          100

SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN WESTERN HOME INSURANCE CO.
Modern Life Insurance Company of  Arizona, Inc.     Arizona            100

SUBSIDIARY OF MIDWEST ENTERPRISES, INC.
Sunbelt General Agency, Inc.                        Alabama            100


      The names of two wholly-owned subsidiaries of The Midland Company are not
shown above as such individual listing is not required.


                                       24

<PAGE>
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-69-2012 PAGE: 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

November 21, 2012

LAB BULLETIN

NUMBER: LB-69-2012

LAP: Asbestos Fiber 

Analysis - TEM

SUBJECT: Disclaimer to Be Added to TEM Test Reports

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that laboratories report specific information 

on test reports for TEM per 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart E, Appendix A, Ch. 1 (7-1-89 Edition).

NVLAP has incorporated this information into NIST Handbook 150-13, section 5.10.1.

Item 5.10.1 b), volume of air sampled, is supplied by the customer on the sampling data sheet. 

The air volume is not sampled by the laboratory and is not covered by the NVLAP accreditation.

Item 5.10.1 e) requires the laboratory to report asbestos structures/cm3of air, which is calculated 

using the volume of air sampled. Because these reported results are not covered by NVLAP 

accreditation, laboratories are required to qualify reported results as stated in NIST Handbook 

150, Annex A, Sections (h) and/or (i).

Effective March 1, 2013, a disclaimer shall be added to all airborne asbestos test reports issued

under the NVLAP accreditation. That disclaimer shall clearly indicate that results reported in 

asbestos structures/cm3of air are not covered by the laboratory’s accreditation. The following 

language is acceptable:

The laboratory is not responsible for data collected by personnel who are not part of the 

laboratory. Results reported in both structures/cm

3

and structures/mm2are dependent on the 

volume of air sampled and measured by non-laboratory personnel and are not covered by 

the laboratory’s NVLAP accreditation.

Based upon NVLAP’s discussions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

inclusion of a disclaimer on test reports that sampling is not performed under a laboratory’s 

scope of accreditation will not jeopardize the acceptability of those test reports under AHERA. 

It is the laboratory’s responsibility to discuss regulatory requirements with its customers 

and ensure that test reports are issued in a manner that meets those requirements.

Please keep this Lab Bulletin with the Airborne Asbestos Fiber Analysis Program-Specific 

Handbook (NIST Handbook 150-13) until the handbook is revised, at which time the

requirement set forth in this bulletin will be incorporated into the handbook.

Questions should be directed to Hazel M. Richmond, Program Manager, at 301-975-3024, or 

hazel.richmond@nist.gov.
#### STATE v. CRISP

No. 224P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 30

Notice of appeal by defendant (substantial constitutional question) dismissed 5 June 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
of] Le

QOOOOO
QEOQOO
Exhibit 23.2  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 333-133898, 333-121705, 333-119808, and 333-112932 on Form S-8,
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-150244 on Form S-3,
and Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 333-153203 on Form S-3
of Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc. of our report dated March 30,
2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Kapalua Bay
Holdings, LLC (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to changes in accounting for assessing the
continuing investment requirements for sales of condominiums), appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2008.   /s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP  Honolulu,
Hawaii
March 30, 2009
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-0388

LT Case No. 2021-CF-6786

_____________________________

JEROME MABRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

London M. Kite, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zac Lawton, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

December 12, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, BOATWRIGHT, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2444

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Acme W. Price, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 5, 1997

 Filed: September 18, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Acme W. Price was arrested for robbing a federally-insured bank, he

confessed to four other such robberies. Price later pleaded guilty to an indictment

charging him with one count of acting with others to rob a federally-insured bank, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2, and with four counts of robbing a federally-
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-

insured bank, in violation of section 2113(a). The district court sentenced Price to

1

120 months& imprisonment and 2 years& supervised release. Price appeals his sentence,

arguing that the district court erred in denying his request pursuant to U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0, p.s. (1995), for a departure from the applicable Guidelines

range based on his extraordinary acceptance of responsibility.

As the district court&s remarks at sentencing evince recognition of its authority

to depart, we conclude that the court&s refusal to do so was an unreviewable exercise

of discretion. See United States v. Hernandez-Reyes, 114 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir.

1997). 

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.