alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
@article{1215116,
  author = {Sharu Kandy and Mathieu Bauchy and Gaurav Sant and Aditya Kumar and Narayanan Neithalath and Samanvaya Srivastava and Torben Gaedt and Edward Garboczi},
  title = {Electrosteric control of the aggregation and yielding behavior of concentrated portlandite suspensions},
  year = {2023},
  number = {39},
  month = {2023-06-13 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Langmuir},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936307},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.3c00704},
  language = {en},
}
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**


**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 Scout Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
      Baily, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      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.




/s/
              Scott BailyScott
                BailyPrincipal
              Executive OfficerPrincipal
              Financial OfficerNovember
                14, 2007
# Training and Career Development Outcome Data

#### Mentored Career Development Awards

**Outcomes for K08 and K23 Awardees**

In May of 2012, NINDS completed an examination of several outcome and demographic measurements for NINDS K08 and K23 awardees. The specific cohort of awardees used is cited on each table.

**Three outcome measures were examined:**

1. Obtained an NIH R01 - the primary goal of the mentored K award is to develop a strong independent research program supported by NIH funding.

2. Obtained significant independent funding from any source (e.g. NIH, other U.S. Gov't., private foundation, pharmaceutical/biotech, etc.).

3. Published a peer reviewed original research paper (excludes reviews and case reports) between January 2010 and May 2012. This metric was used as an indicator of who was still involved in research two to seven years after the termination of his/her K award, regardless of funding activity.

In addition, we examined the impact of the NINDS K02 on R01 success among K08 and K23 awardees. The NINDS K02 is awarded to independent investigators who, following a period of successful mentored training, need additional skills, knowledge and preliminary data to compete successfully for an R01.

Finally, in late 2007, NIH instituted a policy that required that a certain number of early stage investigators (ESI) and/or new investigators (NI) obtain R01s. The result of this mandate is that paylines have been higher for ESI/NI investigators than for established investigators. We looked at how this change in policy influenced "time to first R01" for NINDS K08 and K23 awardees.
              - Funding Obtained by K08 and K23 Awardees
              - Publications by K08 and K23 Awardees Between 2010 and 2012
              - Influence of NINDS K02 on R01 Success
              - Influence of ESI/NI Policy on Time to First R01
              - Number of K08 and K23 Applications Between 2000 and 2018

**Outcomes for Pediatric Neurologist and Neurosurgeon K Awardees**

In November of 2012, NINDS completed an examination of several outcome and demographic measurements for pediatric neurologist and neurosurgeon K02, K08, and K23 awardees. The specific cohort is cited in each table.

**Three outcome measures were examined:**

1. Obtained an NIH R01 - the primary goal of the mentored K award is to develop a strong independent research program supported by NIH funding.

2. Obtained significant independent funding from any source (e.g. NIH, other U.S. Gov't., private foundation, pharmaceutical/biotech, etc.).

3. Published a peer reviewed original research paper (excludes reviews and case reports) between January 2010 and November 2012. This metric was used as an indicator of who was still involved in research after termination of his/her K award, regardless of funding activity.
              - Outcomes for Pediatric Neurologist K02, K08, and K23 awardees
              - Outcomes for Neurosurgeon K08 and K23 awardees

**K Award Applicant Success Rates**
              - K2, K08, and K23 Applicant Success Rates Between 2000 and 2012
ACCEPTED04-14-00709-CRFOURTH COURT OF APPEALSSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS7/20/2015 3:34:01 PMKEITH HOTTLECLERK
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 608 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Republic 

of India should be a permanent member of the United Nations Security 

Council. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. MENG, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Mr. BERA) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Republic of India should be a permanent member 

of the United Nations Security Council. 

Whereas there are currently five permanent members of the 

United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas the Republic of India is the second most populous 

country in the world with almost 1.35 billion citizens and 

it will likely become the most populous country in the 

near future; 

Whereas India is the world’s largest democracy; 

Whereas India has the third largest standing army in the 

world, the largest volunteer army in the world, and has 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 608 IH 

demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting regional 

and global peace by providing tens of thousands of troops 

to United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions; 

Whereas India has been elected seven times as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, 

and, in 2010, a majority of the United Nations General 

Assembly elected India to be the Asian representative to 

the United Nations Security Council; and 

Whereas the United States-India relationship is an essential 

partnership supporting global economic and strategic 

policies: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the Republic of India’s inclusion as 

3 a permanent member of the United Nations Security 

4 Council; and 

5 (2) urges the Administration to work with 

6 members of the United Nations to effect India’s 

7 entry as a permanent member of the United Nations 

8 Security Council. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Anthony S. Shalom, Chief Executive Officer of Intcomex, Inc. (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:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 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: October 26, 2009



/s/ Anthony S. ShalomAnthony S. ShalomChief Executive Officer(Chairman of the Board of Directors)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[979 NE2d 807, 955 NYS2d 547]

#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel F., Appellant.

Argued September 4, 2012;

decided October 30, 2012

*1087APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Emmett J. Creahan, Mental Hygiene Legal Service,*Rochester *(Lisa L. Paine*of counsel), for appellant.

*Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General,*Albany *(Kathleen M. Treasure, Barbara D. Underwood*and *Andrea Oser*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the order of Supreme Court reinstated.

In this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding, Supreme Court, after a bench trial, found that respondent is not a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 (d), and ordered his discharge from confinement subject to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision. The Appellate Division reversed concluding that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (77 AD3d 1400 [4th Dept 2010]).

In a case such as this, where a factual disagreement exists between the trial court and the Appellate Division, we review the record to determine which factual findings more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence. Upon review of the record here, we conclude that the findings of Supreme Court more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Sheila G,*61 NY2d 368, 386 [1984]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VI - Reports Related to Service and Compensation 

Chapter 1: Form AA-12, Notice of Death and Statement of Compensation

1

Purpose of Form AA-12

The purpose of Form AA-12 is twofold. The form is used to notify the Railroad Retirement Board 

of an employee's death and to provide information not yet reported about the deceased employee's 

service and compensation. This information is used to determine any survivor benefit. 

The employer usually initiates Form AA-12. If service and compensation information has not been 

reported by the time the RRB is processing the application for survivor benefits, the RRB will send 

Form AA-12 to the employer requesting the information. 

What Years are Reported on Form AA-12? 

Form AA-12 may be used to report service and compensation for the current year, prior year, or 

both prior and current years’ service and compensation. For example, if an employee worked 

through January 22, 2005 and then died; Form AA-12 would cover years 2004 and 2005. Form 

AA-12 would include all service and compensation not yet reported to the RRB for both years 

because the 2004 annual report is not due to the RRB until the last day of February 2005. 

AA-12 Reports are Interim Reports 

The information on Form AA-12 is considered to be "Lag" service and compensation because it 

has not been posted to the employee's master service and compensation record at the RRB. Lag is 

the time between the last month for which service and compensation has been reported to the RRB 

and, if it is later, the employee's date last worked. The period from January of the current year 

through the date last worked is always a lag period because the "annual" report of this information 

is not due to the RRB until the last day of February of the following year. It is necessary that all 

service and compensation be included in the annual report for that year although this information 

has been previously submitted on Form AA-12. 

Form AA-12 is completed with information available at the time, while the annual report is 

completed with information at the end of the year. Because the information is more complete at 

the end of the calendar year, the annual report information is considered the correct service and 

compensation if discrepancies exist between a lag report and an annual report. 

Completing Form AA-12 

Instructions are included on the form. Of particular importance is the instruction not to report 

service months after the month of an employee's death. As mentioned in Part III, Chapter 2, an 

employment relationship ends at death. 

The principles and guidelines for reporting service and compensation on Form AA-12 are the same 

as those used for the annual reports. The information provided on Form AA-12 may not be the 

same as the service and compensation data later provided on the annual report but both reports 

should be consistent. Any questions about the AA-12 should be directed to a reporting specialist 

in the Quality Reporting Service Center.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00333-CR

__________________

VIRNA CATHERINE FENDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-338600

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

In a series of motions and notices filed after the parties filed their briefs for 

the appeal, the appellant, Virna Catherine Fender, asked this Court: (1) to strike the 

State’s brief as a fraud upon the court because the brief incorrectly stated that the 

case was heard before a jury; (2) to allow her to “Amend the appeal”, which we 

interpret to be a request to correct briefing deficiencies; (3) to take judicial notice of 

her appeal from an administrative license suspension; and (4) to direct the trial court

to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding her motion to suppress 
2

evidence. The State amended its brief but did not file a response to Fender’s other 

motions. 

In the interest of justice, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial 

court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the trial court’s 

essential findings on Fender’s motion to suppress evidence. See State v. Cullen, 195 

S.W.3d 696, 698-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed with 

the Court of Appeals on or before September 10, 2020. The appeal will be reinstated 

without further order of this Court when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed. The 

parties may file supplemental briefs that address the trial court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.7. The appellant’s supplemental brief is 

due thirty days after the supplemental clerk’s record is filed. The State’s 

supplemental brief is due thirty days after the appellant files her supplemental brief. 

This Court will take judicial notice of Appeal Number 09-19-00338-CV, but the 

clerk’s record filed in that appeal is not a part of and will not be considered as the 

record of this appeal. See State v. Clammer, 999 S.W.2d 903, 906 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 1999, pet. ref’d) (the appellate court reviews the trial court’s judgment 

based upon the evidence before the trial court at the time it made the decision 

complained of.). All other requested pre-submission relief is denied.

ORDER ENTERED August 11, 2020.
3

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION









EXHIBIT

10.1




MESABA

AIRLINES




 




 




November 20, 2001




 




 




 




Mr. Jim Cron




Vice President, Market

Planning & Airlink




Northwest Airlines, Inc.




Department A6050




5101 Northwest Drive




St. Paul, Minnesota  55111-3034




 




Dear Jim:





                I have received your

letter of November 1, 2001 in which you requested that Mesaba consider certain

concessions under the Airline Services Agreement and Regional Jet Services

Agreement.  Specifically you requested:




 




	

  1.


  	

  A 5% rate reduction on the base rates in the

  contracts;


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  2.


  	

  The termination of the Fleet Adjusted ASM Rate and

  Quarterly Adjusted ASM Rate payment provisions;


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  3.


  	

  The termination of the operational incentive

  payments; and


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  4.


  	

  A 30 day extension of payment terms.


  
	

   


  	

   


  





                Mesaba will agree to each of the

foregoing items for the period from October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001.




                In addition, you have asked

Mesaba to consider the transition of Memphis Saab flying to us.  Mesaba will assume up to nine additional

lines of Memphis flying, beginning in the first half of 2002, according to

terms consistent with the existing ASA between the two companies.













                If this is

acceptable to Northwest Airlines, please sign the acknowledgment below and

return a copy of this letter to me.




Sincerely,




 




Mesaba Holdings, Inc.




Mesaba Aviation, Inc.




 




 




/s/Paul Foley




Paul F. Foley




President and Chief

Executive Officer




 




 




Acknowledged and agreed

to on November 20, 2001.




 




Northwest Airlines, Inc.




 




 




By /s/Jim Cron




                Jim Cron




                Vice President,




                Market Planning & Airlink
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBAENES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge: Section 13(a)



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of Section 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934: and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following persons on
behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|/s/ David Stark                                   
|David Stark                                       
|President                                         
|                                                  
|February 3, 2009                                  
|                                                  
|/s/ Andrew J. Norstrud                            
|Andrew J. Norstrud                                
|Chief Financial Officer & Chief Accounting Officer
|                                                  
|February 3, 2009
#### In the Matter of Heritage Hills Sewage Works Corporation, Respondent, v Town Board of Town of Somers et al., Appellants. Heritage Hills Society, Ltd., Intervenor-Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 303]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Somers dated February 6, 2004, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner’s rate-increase petition only to the extent of granting a 3.8% rate increase for sewage treatment services, the Town Board of the Town of Somers and the Town of Somers appeal, and Heritage Hills Society, Ltd., separately appeals, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered March 28, 2005, which, inter alia, granted the petition, annulled the determination, and authorized the petitioner to implement the rates proposed in its rate-increase petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the defendants-appellants and the intervenorappellant appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The Supreme Court granted the petition on the ground that the Town Board of the Town of Somers (hereinafter the Town Board) failed to reach a determination on the rate-increase petition of the Heritage Hills Sewage Works Corporation (hereinafter the Company) within the 90-day deadline imposed by Transportation Corporations Law § 121, as extended by the par*616ties on consent. However, Transportation Corporations Law § 121 does not govern the instant controversy, because the Town Board and the Company, by stipulation, charted their own procedural course. The parties, among other matters, agreed to extend the statutory 90-day time period, and implemented scheduling for, inter alia, document inspection and discovery, proceedings before the Town Board, and release of the Town Board special counsel’s recommended decision for review and comment. The procedures agreed upon by the parties did not offend public policy, even though they stipulated away statutory rights *(see Town of Orangetown v Magee,*88 NY2d 41, 54 [1996]; *Mitchell v New York Hosp.,*61 NY2d 208, 214 [1984]; *Cook v Greenbaum,*18 AD3d 416, 417-418 [2005]; *Marine Midland Bank v Worldwide Indus. Corp.,*307 AD2d 221 [2003]; *J & A Vending v J.A.M. Vending,*303 AD2d 370, 371-372 [2003]; *Braithwaite v Braithwaite,*299 AD2d 383, 384 [2002]). Applying the procedures agreed upon by the parties, it was error for the Supreme Court to grant the petition on the ground stated.

Accordingly, we remit the proceeding to the Supreme Court to review the administrative record and determine whether the Town Board’s determination lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious *(see e.g. Matter of McKinnon v Aponte,*196 AD2d 655, 658 [1993]; *Matter of Guddemi v State of N.Y., Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*138 AD2d 376 [1988]). Florio, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.