alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22165]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9035-6]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/ nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed 10/02/2017 through 10/06/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20170198, Final, USAF, MD, Presidential Aircraft 
Recapitalization Program, Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility, Review 
Period Ends: 11/15/2017, Contact: Ms Jean Renolds 210-925-4534.
EIS No. 20170200, Draft, FTA, PA, King of Prussia Rail Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 12/4/2017, Contact: Daniel Koenig 202-366-8224.
EIS No. 20170201, Draft, USN, CA, Hawaii-Southern Californian Training 
and Testing, Comment Period Ends: 12/12/2017, Contact: Nora Macariola-
See 808-472-1402.
EIS No. 20170202, Draft, USFS, CO, CP District-wide Salvage, Comment 
Period Ends: 11/30/2017, Contact: Mike Tooley 719-274-6321.

    Dated: October 9, 2017.
Kelly Knight,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-22165 Filed 10-13-17; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|   | 1. | The      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,      2009, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic      Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;    and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of      the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the      Company for the period covered by the Periodic  Report. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/    | Peter A. Michel              |   | /s/    | Lincoln Zehr                 |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |                         |   |   |                         |   |
|   | Peter      A. Michel         |   |   | Lincoln      Zehr            |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
Exhibit 31.2 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, M. Brinkley Morse, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Quest Software, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 13, 2003
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1914V

UNPUBLISHED

SARAH GRIFFORE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 11, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On December 18, 2019, Sarah Griffore filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 

31, 2019 and subsequently suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration 

(SIRVA). Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

On June 11, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury 

Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, which afford petitioners a 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

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

presumption of causation for a SIRVA injury if there is no prior history of pain, 

inflammation, or dysfunction in the affected shoulder; the onset of shoulder pain occurs 

within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of 

motion are limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was given; and there is no 

apparent alternative cause. Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that the medical 

records demonstrate that Petitioner has experienced the residual effects of her SIRVA for 

more than six months. Id. at 5.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Exhibit 99.2

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

I, Nico Rosier, Chief Financial Officer of Prolong International Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002 (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 780(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.

|Dated:   November 12, 2002 |                                                                      
|-------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                           |                                                                      
|                           |                                                                      
|                           | /s/  NICHOLAS ROSIER                                                 
|                           |                                                                      
|                           | Nicholas Rosier Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Brook Shopping Centers, Inc., Appellant, v Allied Stores General Real Estate Company et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 483]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring that the defendants are obligated to pay 20.81% of the cost of maintaining the Cross County Shopping Center, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sweeny, J.), dated May 28, 1996, which, after a non-jury trial, declared, *inter alia,*that (1) the defendants have no obligation to share in the costs for real estate taxes, insurance premiums, general and administrative costs, and security and merchants’ association dues in connection with the common areas of the shopping center, and (2) the defendants’ obligation to share in the plaintiff’s maintenance obligations shall be determined by dividing the total assessed value of their building located within the shopping center by the total assessed value of the land and improvements constituting the shopping center.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

This matter concerns a dispute between the parties over the nature and extent of the defendants’ obligations pursuant to the provisions of a document dated March 27, 1953. This Court previously affirmed an order denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and determined that triable issues of fact existed regarding the interpretation of the document *(see,*
      *481
      *Brook Shopping Ctrs. v Allied Stores Gen. Real Estate Co.,*165 AD2d 854). The Supreme Court thereafter conducted a nonjury trial and resolved the disputed issues in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the trial court did not err in striking certain portions of the testimony of the plaintiffs principal witness, Raymond Keyes. The record demonstrates that the stricken testimony concerned statements or impressions of out-of-court declarants which were not the products of direct discussions with the witness, were lacking in relevance, and constituted inadmissible hearsay *(see, e.g., Tele-Pac, Inc. v Grainger,*168 AD2d 11, 19).

Similarly unavailing is the plaintiffs contention that the trial court’s interpretation of the document is commercially unreasonable and unsupported by the record. Upon our review of the document at issue and the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the trial, we discern no basis upon which to disturb the court’s conclusion.

We have considered the plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Seth Lukash, certify that:



In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q/A of Tumbleweed Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ending September 30, 2014 (the "Report"), the undersigned
officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; 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: January 23, 2015



|/s/  Seth Lukash                | 
|------------------------------- | 
|                                | 
|Seth Lukash                     | 
|Interim Chief Financial Officer |
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51


July 8, 2004


Helverth Rodriguez


Dear Helverth,

RE:      EMPLOYEE SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN AND EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN

In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan ("the Preference Share
Plan"), you are hereby advised that the Grant Date is July 6, 2004 for benefits
you have accrued during the year ended 31 December 2003.

Accordingly you are granted 89 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the
option to purchase an equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$13.45
or CI$11.21 each, which has been calculated in accordance to the terms of the
Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise this option, then payment must
be received in full no later than the close of business on AUGUST 5, 2004.

As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan ("the Option Plan"), you will also
be granted, as of July 6, 2004, the option to purchase 445 Ordinary Shares in
the Company. These options are exercisable in accordance to the terms of the
Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity to obtain an equal amount of
options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to the terms
of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional
Preference Shares before AUGUST 5, 2004.

Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful
year for Consolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.

Yours sincerely,
CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. LTD.


/s/ Frederick W. McTaggart

Frederick W. McTaggart
President and CEO
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and as of the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ NICHOLAS J. BENSON 
|Nicholas J. Benson     
|Chief Executive Officer
|Dated: May 10, 2005
#### Marcus D. MIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-12077.

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2010.

*921Donald A. Yarbrough, Attorney at Law, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Barbara A. Sinsley, Barron Newberger & Sinsley PLLC, Lutz, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Mims appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against Arrow Financial Services, LLC, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mims’ complaint alleged that Arrow acted in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Mims acknowledges that this Court has held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over private actions under the Act. Mims, however, contends that we should reconsider our binding precedent in light of two Supreme Court decisions and a Seventh Circuit decision.

We held in *Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc.*that “Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the Act,” and therefore “federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction [over] private actions under the Act.” 136 F.3d 1287, 1288-89 (11th Cir.1998), modified, 140 F.3d 898 (11th Cir.1998). We are bound by this precedent. *See Smith v. GTE Corp.,*236 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir.2001).

Mims, in asking this Court to reconsider its precedent, points to *Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g,*545 U.S. 308, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005), and *Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc.,*538 U.S. 691, 123 S.Ct. 1882, 155 L.Ed.2d 923 (2003). Neither of those cases considered the Act, and neither of them explicitly or implicitly overrules our precedent. *See United States v. Kaley,*579 F.3d 1246, 1255 (“To constitute an overruling ... the Supreme Court decision must be clearly on point.”) (citations and quotations omitted). Additionally, the Seventh Circuit’s decision in *Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.2005), does not overturn our precedent. *See Kaley,*579 F.3d at 1255 (“We may disregard the holding of a prior opinion only where that holding is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.”) (citations and quotations omitted).

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Mims’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Michael J. Marx, the Chief Financial Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.   /s/ Michael J. Marx Michael J. Marx Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  August 14, 2012
Nos. 05- 15 -01027- CR

Brandon Donya Hughes § In the Court of Appeals

v. § for the Fifth District The State of Texas § of Texas at Dallas

S TATE ’ S M OTION FOR E XTENSION OF T IME TO F ILE B RIEF

The State of Texas, by and through the Criminal District Attorney of Dallas County, respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for filing the State’s brief. In support of this motion, the State shows the following:
1. A grand jury indicted Appellant for the murder of Lahomer Anderson. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02 (West 2011). (CR:9). Appellant elected to have a jury trial, which began August 18, 2015. (RR3:15; CR 79). The jury found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

– Institutional Division. (RR4:133; RR5:133, 135; CR:79-80). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. (CR:82).
2. Appellant filed his brief on November 5, 2015. The State’s brief is due on Saturday , December 5 , 2015. This is the State’s first r equest for an extension of time

. This case has not yet been set for submission. ACCEPTED 05-15-01027-CR FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 12/4/2015 10:00:53 AM

LISA MATZ CLERK2 3. The undersigned counsel was assigned to this appeal on November 5 , 2015.
Since September 30 , 2015, C ounsel was assigned to respond to the a ppellant’s brief in Taylor v. State , appellate cause number 0 5

- 15

- 00567

- CR, with the State’s brief due on October 23, 2015. Counsel filed an motion for extension of time to file br ief on
October 22 , 2015 and that motion was granted with a due date of November 22,
2015

. Counsel filed a brief in that cause number on November 18, 2015. Since October 30, 2015, counsel began work on Hernandez v. State , appellate cause number
05

- 15

- 00198

- CR, with the State’s brief due on October 24, 2015. The appellate
division was not served a copy of the brief filed in this cause number and did not become aware of the filing until October 29, 2015. Counsel requested and received an
extension to fil e until November 23, 2015 and subsequently filed a brief in that cause number on November 18, 2015. Counsel also missed some workdays during the week of November 9, 2015 due to illness.
In addition to his briefing responsibilities , counsel also has performed o ther duties required of his job, such as providing trial support to trial prosecutors , performing research for senior attorneys, and assisting trial courts with abatements of pending appeals

.3

For all the foregoing reasons, counsel respectfully asks the Court to extend the deadline for filing the State’s brief until Monday , January 4 , 201 6
. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Rhys Carson Rhys Carson (SBN 24092227) Assistant District Attorney Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riv erfront Blvd., LB

- 19 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399 214

- 653

- 3625 214

- 653

- 3643 (fax)

C ERTIFICATE OF S ERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing motion was served on R. Scott Walker, counsel for Appellant, by electronic service through eF ileTexas.gov on December 4 , 2015. /s/ Rhys Carson Rhys Carson