alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-Q of TMP Inland Empire V, Ltd.
(the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form
10-Q), we, Daniel L. Stephenson and John Fonseca 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:

(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

`Daniel L. Stephenson
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     November 12, 2002

                                                     /S/DANIEL L STEPJHENSON
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     John Fonseca
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     November 12, 2002

                                                     /S/JOHN FONSECA
                                                     --------------------------`
Case 3:11-cv-00819-JAP -DEA Document 9-6 Filed 02/17/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 403
Case 3:11-cv-00819-JAP -DEA Document 9-6 Filed 02/17/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 404
#### Gussie GOLDMAN and Morris Goldman, her husband, Plaintiffs v. Walter Fred MOONEY and Walter W. Mooney, Defendants.

Civ. No. 15087.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 25, 1959.

James Fitzgerald, P. J. McArdle, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

J. Lawrence McBride, of Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

*280MARSH, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in this action object to defendants’ requests for admissions of facts submitted under Rule 36, Fed.R. Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A. Defendants have requested that plaintiffs admit that certain diagnoses of wife plaintiff’s eye condition were in fact made. Plaintiffs object on the ground that admissions of these facts will deprive them of their right of cross-examination of the medical experts whose opinions form the subject matter of the requests for admissions.

Plaintiffs’ reluctance to answer is apparently based upon an assumption that the answers to defendants’ requests if made would be admissible in evidence at the trial of the case. We make no such assumption, and, while the question of the admissibility of admissions such as those involved here is not before us, we entertain serious doubts as to their admissibility in evidence at the trial. Admissible or not, however, the requests being for relevant matter, we find that they should be answered and their admissibility determined by the trial judge. See: Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, 3d ed., vol. 7, § 25.722, pp. 703-4.

Defendants have not followed, in full, the language of Form 25 following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 but this failure does not alter the fact that any admissions made by plaintiffs are made “subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at the trial”.

Plaintiffs also object on the ground that the requests seek admissions on questions going to the heart of the controversy. Without deciding the validity of such an objection, we find it inapposite here. Defendants do not request an admission as to wife plaintiff’s medical condition, but only admissions that certain medical experts made particular statements, the accuracy of which plaintiffs clearly would not admit in answering the-request.

An appropriate order will be entered.

1

. Form 25 states:

> “Plaintiff A.B. requests defendant C.D. within * * * days after service of this request to make the following admissions for the purpose of this action only and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at the trial: * *
Case 2:11-mj-08143-MCA Document 9 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-mj-08143-MCA Document 9 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-mj-08143-MCA Document 9 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 21
[No. 55087-0-I.

Division One.

November 14, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David Eugene Duckett, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-11839-1, Richard McDermott, J., entered November 22, 2004. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36275-36276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17386]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; NRC-2009-0322]


Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 
3, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and 
DPR-64, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) to 
withdraw its July 8, 2008 application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, located in Westchester County, 
New York.
    The proposed amendments would have added license conditions to 
support implementation of an extended inservice inspection interval for 
reactor vessel weld inspections.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on September 9, 
2008 (73 FR 52416). However, by letter dated July 1, 2009, the licensee 
withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 8, 2008, and the licensee's letter 
dated July 1, 2009, which withdrew the application for a license 
amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83f3e7f1c3edf1e0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f4f5b4d7f514d5c11585049">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 2009.


[[Page 36276]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-17386 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                            0000884888
<NAME>                 SunPharm Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                              1
<CURRENCY>                               USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                              848,933
<SECURITIES>                        497,354
<RECEIVABLES>                         5,648
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,406,556
<PP&E>                               65,720
<DEPRECIATION>                       15,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,611,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               414,758
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                577
<OTHER-SE>                        1,195,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,611,010
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    132,695
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,050,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (918,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (918,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      (918,071)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas Bowers, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Enviro-Energy Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby 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.

This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Registrant.

Date:  April 14, 2003

/s/ Thomas Bowers

Thomas Bowers

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Chart 3-3. About 2 percent of nonfarm jobs are in temporary 

help services

Thousands Percent of total nonfarm payroll employment

NOTE: Shaded areas represent recessions. Data are seasonally adjusted.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Chart 3-3. About 2 percent of nonfarm jobs are in 

temporary help services

• Employment in temporary help services—an industry that provides workers to 

many other industries—grew rapidly during the 1990s and into 2000. 

• After falling sharply during the 2001 recession, employment in the industry 

began trending back up in 2003. By the end of 2005, the industry accounted 

for nearly 2 percent of total nonfarm payroll employment, about the same 

share as at its previous peak in 2000.

• In 2006, temporary help services employment was little changed on net.
#### In the Matter of the Gates of Goodness and Mercy, by Denise Wallace, Petitioner, v John A. Johnson, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 866]

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination revoking petitioner’s license to operate a group family daycare home. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). The hearsay evidence presented by respondent was admissible in this administrative proceeding, and it was sufficiently relevant and probative to constitute substantial evidence *(see Matter of Gray v Adduci,*73 NY2d 741, 742 [1988]; *People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; *see also Matter of BiCounty Brokerage S. Corp. v State of N.Y. Ins. Dept.,*4 AD3d 470 [2004]). We further conclude that the penalty is not “so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]; *see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001], *rearg denied*96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
NO. 07-02-0072-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JUNE 20, 2002

	________________________________

	TAMMY TOWNSLEY CHEEK

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. A-14198-0109; HON. JACK R. MILLER, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Dismissal

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN, and REAVIS, JJ.

	Tammy Townsley Cheek (appellant) appealed her conviction for theft.  The conviction and judgment manifesting same was entered upon her plea of guilty and plea bargain with the State.  Furthermore, the sentence imposed by the trial court did not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the appellant.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	Appellant filed a general notice of appeal.  Yet, because she pled guilty and the sentence assessed by the trial court did not exceed the parameters of the plea bargain, she was required to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3).  That is, she was required to recite in her notice that she was appealing based upon jurisdictional defects, that the substance of her appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted her permission to appeal.1  None of these statements appear in the notice, however.   Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding.  Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

										Per Curiam

Do Not Publish.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17207]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Cancer 
Institute Special Emphasis Panel, August 5, 2009, 8 a.m. to August 6, 
2009, 5 p.m., Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 
Bethesda, MD which was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 
2009, 74FR30592.
    This notice is to cancel the NCI-ARRA Grand Opportunities-Clinical/
Translational Special Emphasis Panel that was to be held on August 5-6, 
2009.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-17207 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

To the Board of Directors ofSMTC Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-44250) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No.333-116986) on Form S-3, the registration statement (No. 333-86802) on Form S-3, and the registration statement (No. 333-115400) on Form S-1 of SMTC Corporation of our report dated April 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof SMTC Corporation as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity (deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2006, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of SMTC Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants 

Toronto, Canada 

April 2, 2007
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT
  Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Seaway Valley Capital
Corporation (the "Company") certifies that:
  1. The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter ended March 31,
2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
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/
                                                  THOMAS
      SCOZZAFAVATHOMAS
      SCOZZAFAVAChief
      Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:
                                                  
                                                  
                                                  May
      20, 2009
 This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
 
  17
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDERICK JOHNSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2790

[ February 8, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Hon. Thomas Coleman,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 88

- 24663CF10A.

Frederick Johnson, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| Sextant

**Mutual Funds** | **Graphic Omitted** |
|---------------------------|---------------------|
[No. 23502-5-III.

Division Three.

November 29, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Paul David White, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 03-1-00982-8, C. James Lust, J., entered October 7, 2004. *Remanded*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, A.C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Brown, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1




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 Nyer Medical Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark Dumouchel, President
and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and acting Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.




/s/ Mark DumouchelName:
            Mark
      DumouchelTitle:
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer andacting
      Principal Financial Officer)






February
17, 2009
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 613

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for 

elementary and secondary school teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, and Mr. RYUN of Kansas) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a tax credit for elementary and secondary school teachers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Teacher Tax Cut Act 

5 of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TEACHERS OF ELEMENTARY OR SEC7 ONDARY SCHOOLS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

10 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 
2

•HR 613 IH 

1 amended by inserting after section 25B the following new 

2 section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 25C. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACH4 ERS. 

5 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an eli6 gible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against 

7 the tax imposed by this chapter for a taxable year an 

8 amount equal to $1,000. 

9 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—

10 ‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

12 subparagraph (B), for purposes of subsection 

13 (a), the term ‘eligible individual’ means an indi14 vidual who—

15 ‘‘(i) is a teacher in an elementary or 

16 secondary school, and 

17 ‘‘(ii) is employed on a full-time basis 

18 for an academic year ending during the 

19 taxable year. 

20 ‘‘(B) EXCLUDED INDIVIDUALS.—Such 

21 term does not include an individual who is em22 ployed, on a full-time basis for such academic 

23 year, as other staff, as that term is defined in 

24 section 14101(20) of the Elementary and Sec-
3

•HR 613 IH 

1 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

2 8801(20)). 

3 ‘‘(2) ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL.—

4 The term ‘elementary or secondary school’ means 

5 any school which provides elementary education or 

6 secondary education (through grade 12), as deter7 mined under State law. 

8 ‘‘(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall prescribe 

9 regulations to carry out this section, including regulations 

10 providing for claiming the credit under this section on 

11 Form 1040EZ.’’

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

13 for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 

14 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item relat15 ing to section 25B the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 25C. Elementary and secondary school teachers.’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

18 December 31, 2002.

Æ
63

79

67

58 57 61

78 81

93 89

76 76 75 76

0

20

40

60

80

100

16 years and

over

16 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 years and

over

1979 2005

Chart 5-10. The women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio has 

increased for most major age groups

NOTE: Earnings are median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Women's earnings as a percent of men's

Age

Chart 5-10. The women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio has 

increased for most major age groups

• The women's-to-men's earnings ratios have increased for workers under 65 

years of age over the 1979-2005 period. The ratio for those 65 years of age and 

over was little changed.

• In 2005, the ratios were highest for women 16 to 34 years old.

• Care should be taken in interpreting these data, however, as they provide only a 

snapshot of earnings patterns in 2005. Older women faced a different social 

and economic climate at the start of their work lives than that which exists for 

young women today. Consequently, the lifetime earnings pattern of today’s 

older women is not a reliable guide to the lifetime earnings pattern of today’s 

younger women.