alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an
officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                        |  |     |  |                           
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ James T. Boosales     
|                        |  |     |  | James T. Boosales         
|                        |  |     |  | Executive Committee Member
|                        |  |    
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles L. Pope       
|                        |  |     |  | Charles L. Pope           
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19484]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Celerity Partners SBIC, L.P.

[License No. 09/79-0445]


Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Celerity Partners SBIC, L.P., 11150 
Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1470, Los Angeles, CA 90025, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(``the Act''), in connection with the sale of a small concern, has 
sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act, Section 107.730(a), 
you must not self-deal to the prejudice of a Small Business, the 
Licensee, its shareholders or partners, or SBA., and Section 
107.730(e)(3), Associate must not receive any income or anything of 
value from the Portfolio Concern unless it is for your benefit, with 
the exception of director's fees, expenses, and distributions based 
upon the Associate's ownership interest in the Concern. The transaction 
is brought within the purview of Sections 107.730(a) and 107.730(e)(3) 
of the Regulations because which constitutes Conflicts of Interest of 
the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') Rules. Celerity Partners 
SBIC, L.P. proposes to sell eStudy Site Inc. (``eSS), 292 Euclid Ave, 
Suite 225, San Diego, California 92114, with NRI Clinical Research 
(``NRI'') and, Meridien Research, Inc. (``Meridien''). Because the 
Associates, Mark Benham and Matt Kraus, will receive proceeds from 
their investments and carried interests from Meridien and NRI, and a 
transaction fee, this transaction constitutes Conflict of Interest 
requiring SBA's prior written exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment 
and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20416.

A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2017-19484 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
exv10w2





Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made this 14th day of
December, 2011, effective as of the January 1, 2012, by and between PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Carlos A. Ruisanchez, an individual (“Executive”), with
respect to the following facts and circumstances:



RECITALS




The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated March 28, 2011 (the
“Agreement”) with Executive having a base salary of Five Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($580,000)
per year.



On December 9, 2011, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
increased the Executive’s base salary to Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) per year,
effective January 1, 2012.




The Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect Executive’s new salary.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:



AMENDMENT




1. Article 3, Section 3.1 of the Agreement (Compensation) is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following new Article 3, Section 3.1:



“3.1 Base Salary. In consideration for Executive’s services hereunder, the Company
shall pay Executive an annual base salary at the rate of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000)
per year during each of the years of the Term; payable in accordance with the Company’s regular
payroll schedule from time to time (less any deductions required for Social Security, state,
federal and local withholding taxes, and any other authorized or mandated similar withholdings).”



2. Except as modified herein, all other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment, the
terms of this Amendment shall apply. No modification may be made to the Agreement or this
Amendment except in writing and signed by both the Company and Executive.


 


 









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed this
14th day of December, 2011 and effective as of January 1, 2012.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE	 	 	 	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Carlos A. Ruisanchez
 

Carlos A. Ruisanchez

	 	 
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Anthony Sanfilippo
 

Anthony Sanfilippo, President and
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Chief Executive Officer	 	 







 


- 2 -
In the Senate of the United States, 

March 29, 2012. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2297) entitled ‘‘An Act to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

On page 5, after line 10, add the following: 

1 SEC. 4. PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON CHAN2 NEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navi4 gation of the Corps of Engineers at Potomac River, Wash5 ington Channel, District of Columbia, as authorized by the 

6 Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 Stat. 1028), and 

7 described in subsection (b), is deauthorized. 

8 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.—The deauthorized 

9 portion of the project for navigation is as follows: Begin10 ning at Washington Harbor Channel Geometry Centerline 

11 of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship channel, Cen-
2 

† HR 2297 EAS 

1 terline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 

2 441948.20, East 1303969.30, as stated and depicted on the 

3 Condition Survey Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and 

4 Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 

5 of 6, prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engi6 neers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the 

7 aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses 

8 and distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 

9 200.00 feet to a point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide 

10 channel thence binding on said outline the following 3 

11 courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds 

12 E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees 44 minutes 

13 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 11 degrees 

14 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; 

15 S. 78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a 

16 point binding on the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main 

17 navigational channel at computed Centerline Station No. 

18 65+54.31, coordinates North 438923.9874, East 

19 1306159.9738, thence; continuing with the aforementioned 

20 centerline the following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 

21 27 minutes 04 seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline 

22 Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 

23 seconds W., 2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 

24 89+00.67, thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 

25 1,472.26 feet to the point of beginning, the area in total 
3 

† HR 2297 EAS 

1 containing a computed area of 777,284 square feet or 

2 17.84399 acres of riparian water way. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 2297 

AMENDMENT
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 225 

Honoring the National Association of Women Business Owners on its 40th 

anniversary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2015 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. COONS, Ms. 

AYOTTE, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. 

PETERS, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. ERNST, and Mr. ENZI) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the National Association of Women Business 

Owners on its 40th anniversary. 

Whereas women-owned businesses are one of the fastestgrowing segments of the United States economy; 

Whereas 13,600,000 firms are 50 percent or more owned by 

women, and these businesses employ nearly 15,900,000 

people and generate $2,700,000,000,000 in revenue as of 

2013; 

Whereas empowering more women entrepreneurs and business owners is important to the economic future of the 

United States; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 225 IS 

Whereas the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) was established in 1975 by a group of 

like-minded businesswomen to serve as the collective voice 

of women business owners across the country and advocate on behalf of their entrepreneurial interests; 

Whereas NAWBO’s roots are in public policy, and NAWBO 

played an integral role in the passage of the Women’s 

Business Ownership Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–533; 

102 Stat. 2689); 

Whereas NAWBO remains focused on collaborating to create 

a business-friendly environment at the Federal, State, 

and local levels to enable women to start and grow their 

businesses and create jobs; and 

Whereas NAWBO represents a diverse universe of women 

business owners across an array of sectors in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends the National 

2 Association of Women Business Owners for its tireless ef3 forts and decades of support of women entrepreneurs and 

4 business owners and congratulates the National Associa5 tion of Women Business Owners on its 40th anniversary. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HARRY C. WALTERS, DOC # S37472, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-163

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed August 29, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, 

Judge.

Harry C. Walters, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### Fair Price Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Cesar Nivelo, Respondent, v Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellant.

Submitted March 10, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion by New York Insurance Association, Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the *781extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2402 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2402

    To specify the priority of the obligations of the United States 
               Government if the debt ceiling is reached.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2011

 Mr. Webster introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To specify the priority of the obligations of the United States 
               Government if the debt ceiling is reached.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prioritize Spending Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY OF PAYMENTS IF THE DEBT CEILING IS REACHED.

    In the event that the debt of the United States Government, as 
defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, reaches the 
statutory limit, amounts necessary for obligations incurred by the 
Government of the United States shall be made available to the 
following obligations before all other obligations and shall be made 
available as prioritized in the following order (with items listed in 
descending order of prioritization):
            (1) Amounts necessary to carry out the authority of the 
        Department of the Treasury provided in section 3123 of title 
        31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender the principal 
        and interest on debt held by the public.
            (2) Such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) 
        determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and 
        allowances (without interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, 
        Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve 
        components thereof, who perform active service.
            (3) Such amounts as the President certifies to the Congress 
        are necessary to carry out vital national security priorities.
            (4) Amounts necessary to carry out the authority of the 
        Commissioner of Social Security to pay monthly old-age, 
        survivors', and disability insurance benefits under title II of 
        the Social Security Act.
            (5) Amounts necessary to make payments under the Medicare 
        program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
                                 <all>
```
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-602V

Filed: August 12, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

LACEY HAUCK, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

v. * Immune Thrombocytopenic

* Purpura (“ITP”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Shealene Mancuso, Esq., Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA for petitioner.

Coleen Hartley, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On May 4, 2017, Lacey Hauck [“Ms. Hauck” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

2 Petitioner alleges that 

she developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) 

vaccine on October 7, 2015. Stipulation, filed Aug. 12, 2020, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that 

any of the aforementioned immunizations caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On August 12, 2020, the parties 

filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

 

 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the 

Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-

347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision 

will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s 

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party 

has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is 

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes 

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

A lump sum of $58,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Lacey 

Hauck. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available 

under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance 

with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

 Mindy Michaels Roth

 Special Master

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Air National Guard Bureau, Department of the Air Force.

# ACTION: 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Record of Decision (ROD).

# SUMMARY: 

On August 29, 2017, the United States Air Force signed the ROD for the Establishment and Modification of Oregon Military Training Airspace. The ROD states the Air Force decision to modify existing airspace and establish new airspace to support the Oregon Air National Guard's F-15 training operations and to implement practicable mitigations.

                        The decision was based on matters discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Proposed Establishment and Modification of Oregon Military Training Airspace; contributions from the public, tribes, and regulatory agencies; and other relevant factors. The FEIS was made available to the public on May 19, 2017 through a NOA in the                         **Federal Register**                         (82 FR 22997) with a 30-day wait period that ended on June 19, 2017.                    

Authority:                         This NOA is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,                         *et seq*) and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR parts 989.21(b) and 989.24(b)(7)).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Mr. Kevin Marek, NGB/A4, 3500 Fetchett Ave, JB Andrews, MD, 20762, ph: 240-612-8855.

Henry Williams, 

Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-19312 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
#### Clark, by his Next Friend, *v.*Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. Iowa.*

January, 1883.)

Railroad—Negligence—Injury to Passengers—Pleading.

Tlie plaintiff in a suit against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries received while traveling as a passenger on the defendant’s cars through the defendant’s negligence, is hot bound to state in his declaration the particular facts constituting the negligence. It is sufficient to slate generally that the injury was the„result of the defendant’s negligence.

At Law. Action to recover damages for personal injuries. Motion to make declaration more specific.

*Hagerman, McCrary & Hagerman,*for plaintiff.

*H. H. Trimble,*for defendant.

*

From the Colorado Law Reporter.

The opinion of the court was delivered orally by McCrary, circuit judge, who discussed the requisites of a declaration in such a case *589with respect to the allegation of negligence. lie said in substance: The'question is one of pleading, and not necessarily one of evidence. The plaintiff, who was injured while traveling as a passenger on board the defendant’s cars, alleges that he was injured by the derailment of the train on which he was traveling, and that the injury resulted from negligence on the part of the defendant, but ho does not state in what the negligence consisted. If this were a suit by an employe it might, perhaps, be necessary to specify in the complaint the facts constituting the negligence; hut there is a material difference between a suit by an employe and a suit by a passenger for personal injury. The latter has, as a general thing, no means of knowing what has caused the accident or injury. He has nothing to do with the operation of the road. He may be only one of a thousand passengers occupying many coaches. He may be so seriously injured as to be unable to inquire into the causes of the accident. He may be killed, and suit may be brought by his representatives. Many reasons suggest themselves at once why it would be a harsh rule to require a passenger who sues for an injury to specify the acts of negligence, or the facts showing want of care, on the part of the railroad company. It is accordingly settled, we think, by reason and authority, that it is sufficient to state in the declaration generally that’ the injury was the result of defendant’s negligence. When it comes to the trial the burden is upon the plaintiff to show a *prima facie*case. Whether he does so by showing simply that the car ran off the track, and that ho was injured in consequence, is a question which may arise on the trial, but which is not now before us. Ho must show enough to raise a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant, but how far he must go in order to do this we need not now determine.

This view is supported by the authority of Thompson’s work on Carriers of Passengers, p. 547, § 9, and by the cases there cited.