alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARROW
        INTERNATIONAL, INC.


**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Section
      1350 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
      ended
      May 31, 2007 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the
      “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick J. Hirt, the Senior Vice President of
      Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to my knowledge and based upon a review of the Report, 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 the
      dates
      and periods presented as required by such Report.





This
      certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, my own due diligence and representations
      made
      by certain other members of the Company’s senior management.





Date:
      July 9, 2007







/s/
                Frederick J.
                Hirt
              Frederick
                J. Hirt
              Chief
                Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance
              (Principal
                Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
                Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17973]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION


Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board Members

AGENCY: National Capital Planning Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance 
Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: The current United States Code or its supplement requires each 
agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards 
(PRB) to review, evaluate and make a final recommendation on 
performance appraisals assigned to individual members of the agency's 
Senior Executive Service (SES). The PRB established for the National 
Capital Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the agency 
head regarding SES performance awards, rank awards and bonuses. The 
current United States Code or its supplement also requires that notice 
of appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the 
Federal Register.
    The following persons have been appointed to serve as members of 
the Performance Review Board for the National Capital Planning 
Commission: Vicki Barber, Mary John, Paige Cottinghamstreater, and 
Christopher J. Roscetti from October 23, 2017 to October 22, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Young, Administrative Officer, 
National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street NW., Suite 500, 
Washington, DC 20004, (202) 482-7228.

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Barry S. Socks,
Chief Operating Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-17973 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
##### 



Exhibit 11
 
 2005
    
    
    2004Primary:Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations
    
    $
    101
    
    
    
    ($9
    )Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Net Income (Loss)
    
    
    101
    
    
    
    ($9
    )Basic:Average Shares Outstanding
    
    
    1,758
    
    
    
    1,643Per Share Amounts:Continuing Operations
    
    $
    .06
    
    
    
    ($.01
    )Discontinued Operations
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Net Loss
    
    $
    .06
    
    
    
    ($.01
    )Diluted:Average Shares Outstanding
    
    
    1,758
    
    
    
    1,643Net effect of dilutive stock options under the treasury stock
method using the average market price
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Total
    
    
    1,758
    
    
    
    1,643Per Share Amounts:Continuing Operations
    
    $
    .06
    
    
    
    ($.01
    )Discontinued Operations
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Net Loss
    
    $
    .06
    
    
    
    ($.01
    )
 34
#### Irma Gutierrez ANDRADE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73457.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Monika Sud-Devaraj, Law Offices of Marshall G. Whitehead, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

*64Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Irma Gutierrez Andrade seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to remand proceedings to the immigration judge to consider additional evidence. We dismiss the petition for review.

The evidence Gutierrez Andrade presented with her motion to remand concerned the same basic hardship grounds as her application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. *See id.*at 601 (holding that if “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from revisiting the merits); *see also Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 365, 382 (9th Cir.2003) (“Under BIA procedure, a motion to remand must meet all the requirements of a motion to reopen and the two are treated the same.”).

Our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Gutierrez Andrade’s evidence did not warrant remand forecloses any argument that the BIA denied her due process by failing to adequately explain its reasons for denying the motion to remand. *See Fernandez,*439 F.3d at 603-04.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
|    |                                                                                          |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amendment number one to the Form 10-K of Westmoreland Coal Company; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Date:  | April 30, 2018 | /s/ Gary A. Kohn |
|   |   | Name: Gary A. Kohn |
|   |   | Title:   Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |             (Principal Financial Officer) |
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-64451 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statements Nos. 33-61087, 333-5921, and
333-18041 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 7, 1997 (which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern) appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of OXIS International, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1996.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Portland, Oregon

March 25, 1997

                                       92
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,009,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                   415,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,499,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,455,870
<PP&E>                                     121,254,659
<DEPRECIATION>                              71,907,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,282,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,584,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,707
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,733,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,282,231
<SALES>                                      2,598,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,303,140
<CGS>                                        2,025,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,474,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               910,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               194,487
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,557,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,409,035
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,544,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,865,035
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,865,035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
#### MIEHLE v. UNITED STATES.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Sept. 26, 1951.

Mordecai M. Merker, New York City, for plaintiff.

Irving H. Saypol, U. S. Atty. for the Southern District of New York, New York City (John D. Kelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

S. H. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff sues under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq., to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of defendant’s negligence. Interrogatories were served upon defendant in which there was requested the exact text of a signed statement given by plaintiff to an agent of defendant subsequent to the accident. Defendant refused to answer that interrogatory. Plaintiff now *583moves pursuant to F.R.C.P., Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A., to require defendant to- answer that interrogatory, or under Rule 34 for an order requiring defendant to permit plaintiff to inspect and copy the statement.

The cases are not in accord on the question of the right of a party to the discovery of a statement given by himself to an adverse party. Some courts have freely granted discovery under Rule 33. Hayman v. Pullman Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, E.D.1948, 8 F.R.D. 238. Other courts have looked to Rule 34 and required a showing of “good cause” as the -basis of a motion for discovery. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Reynolds, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 194, 176 F.2d 476.

The determination o-f this motion does not present the problem of choosing one or the other of these conflicting views. At the time plaintiff gave the statement to defendant’s- agent, approximately one month after the accident, she was not represented by counsel. Therefore, even under the more stringent rule -of the Safeway case, plaintiff has shown the necessary “good cause” under Rule 34 and should be allowed discovery. 4 Moore, Federal Practice 1148-49 (2d Ed. 1950).

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 1

Occupational Fatalities Decline in 2002

by William J. Wiatrowski

Originally Posted: October 29, 2003

Workplace fatalities declined by 7 percent between 2001 and 2002, according to new data from the BLS Census of Fatal

Occupational Injuries.1 In 2002, 5,524 individuals died as a result of fatal work injuries, the lowest number since BLS began

recording these data in 1992. Comparisons with 2001 data exclude fatalities that resulted from the September 2001 terrorist

attacks; those data were tabulated and published separately in 2002.2

One in four workplace fatalities in 2002 resulted from highway incidents, 13 percent were due to falls, and 11 percent were

due to homicides. While these three events have been the leading sources of workplace deaths for several years, there was

a decline in each category in 2002. The only major category of fatal event that increased in 2002 was exposure to harmful

substances or environments; examples of events in this category include electrocutions and heat stroke.

The greatest number of workplace fatalities (1,121) occurred in the construction industry, although the figure was down 9

percent from the previous year. The number of fatalities was down in several other industries as well, including mining (121

fatalities, down from 170 in 2001) and manufacturing (563 fatalities, down from 598 in 2001).

The occupations with the greatest number of workplace fatalities in 2002 were truck drivers, farm occupations, and sales

occupations. Among the 808 truck drivers killed in 2002, the majority died as a result of highway incidents. Among sales

occupations, the majority were homicide victims, often in convenience stores or restaurants.

Notes

1 National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2002, USDL 03-488 (U.S. Department of Labor), September 17, 2003. For more

information, visit the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries home page, at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm. 2 National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2001, USDL 02-541 (U.S. Department of Labor), September 25, 2002.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Information and Marketing Services, PSB Suite 2850, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC

20212-0001 | www.bls.gov/OPUB | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | Contact Us
Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated February 9, 2002, included in
the 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders of The Ziegler Companies, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation of our report incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration
Statement File Nos. 33-39543, 33-746636, and 333-33476.

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 21, 2002
| (logo) Prudential

  | Prudential Asset Resources,  Inc.

 

**Prudential Mortgage Capital  Company**

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500  Dallas, TX 75201

Tel 877-937-4500

  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation Commercial Mortgage ServicingMAC D1086550 South Tryon Street, 14th FloorCharlotte, North Carolina 28202Attention: Asset Manager

RE:**WFRBS 2013-C13**Period:**January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod")**

**Annual Compliance Statement**I, Timothy E. Steward, in my capacity as President and Managing Director of PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard tothe Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of May 1, 2013 pertaining tothe above-referenced certificates, that:(i) a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during theperiod noted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreementduring the reporting period has been made under my supervision, and(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company hasfulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reportingperiod.

 

 

Effective as of 2/22/2017

/s/ Timothy E. StewardTimothy E. StewardPresident and Managing DirectorPrudential Asset Resources, Inc.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 712 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 

increased aviation security service fees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2015 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. SCHATZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain 

flights from increased aviation security service fees. 

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 ‘‘Passenger Fee Re5 structuring Exemptions Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO RESTRUCTURING OF PASSENGER 

7 FEE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44940(c) of title 49, 

9 United States Code, is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 712 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Fees im2 posed’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in para3 graph (2), fees imposed’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para5 graph (3); and 

6 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Fees imposed under sub9 section (a)(1) may not exceed $2.50 per 

10 enplanement, and the total amount of such fees may 

11 not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip, for passengers— 

12 ‘‘(A) boarding to an eligible place under 

13 subchapter II of chapter 417 for which essential 

14 air service compensation is paid under that sub15 chapter; or 

16 ‘‘(B) on flights, including flight segments, 

17 between 2 or more points in Hawaii or 2 or 

18 more points in Alaska.’’. 

19 (b) IMPLEMENTATION OF FEE EXCEPTIONS.—The 

20 Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement the fee 

21 exceptions under the amendments made by subsection 

22 (a)— 

23 (1) beginning on the date that is 30 days after 

24 the date of the enactment of this Act; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 712 IS

1 (2) through the publication of notice of the fee 

2 exceptions in the Federal Register, notwithstanding 

3 section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, and 

4 the procedural requirements of section 553 of title 5, 

5 United States Code. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21





                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                                       Status as of
      Name                       Incorporation       December 31, 1997
--------------------------       -------------       -----------------

Wisconsin Public Service
  Corporation (1)                  Wisconsin                Active

WPS Leasing, Inc. (2)              Wisconsin                Active

WPS Energy Services, Inc. (1)      Wisconsin                Active

WPS Power Development, Inc. (1)    Wisconsin                Active

WPS Visions, Inc. (1)              Wisconsin                Active

PDI Operations, Inc. (3)           Wisconsin                Active

PDI Stoneman, Inc. (4)             Wisconsin                Active


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


(1)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of WPS Resources Corporation.
  
(2)  WPS Leasing, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Public 
     Service Corporation.

(3)  PDI Operations, Inc. (formerly known as PDI Stoneman Operations, Inc.)
     is a wholly-owned subsidiary of WPS Power Development, Inc.

(4)  PDI Stoneman, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of WPS Power 
     Development, Inc.

                                -249-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6122

ROBERT M. LANCE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(4:04-cv-02247-DCN)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 31, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert M. Lance, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

We limit our review to the issues presented in the informal

brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert M. Lance appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

Lance’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. On appeal, the sole

issue raised by Lance is that the magistrate judge lacked

jurisdiction to adjudicate his action.* This claim fails because

the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to make a recommendation to

the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED