alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2



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

I, Todd M. Raba,  Senior Vice  President  of  MidAmerican  Energy  Company  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company  for the annual  period
          ended  December  31,  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 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated:   March 25, 2003




                                            /s/  Todd M. Raba
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Todd M. Raba
                                            Senior Vice President
                                            (co-chief executive officer)
#### In the Matter of Joseph P. Calzerano, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of the New York City Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

[664 NYS2d 451]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered October 11, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner an accident disability pension, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, a former New York City police officer, failed to meet his burden of establishing a causal connection between his line-of-duty injuries in 1987 and 1990 and the disability to his left knee that forced him to retire in 1993 *(see, Matter of Duggan v Ward,*160 AD2d 533). Petitioner lost no time from work as a result *of*the 1987 accident, and he did not even allege an injury to his left knee arising out of the 1990 accident. Moreover, the orthopedist who saw petitioner in 1987 found only a contusion to the left knee, and deemed him fit to return to full duty, which petitioner did, and which entailed field work until 1990. The evidence of lack of medical treatment, immediate return to full duty, and the substantial lapse of time between the injuries and the onset of the ultimate disability constitute substantial evidence of lack of causal connection *(see, supra; Matter of Mackey v Ward,*166 AD2d 379). There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that respondent Board of Trustees lacked authority to reject the Medical Board’s determination of causal connection, it being settled that the Board of Trustees, while bound by the Medical Board’s determination of disability, is entitled to make its own determination regarding causation *(see, Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*88 NY2d 756, 760; *Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees,*60 NY2d 347, 351). Nor is there merit to petitioner’s due process arguments. As the Federal District Court already determined in a related matter commenced by *85petitioner, he was given an adequate opportunity to present his case to the Trustees *(Calzerano v Board of Trustees,*877 F Supp 161), and the tie vote procedure employed by the Trustees has long been recognized as proper *(see, Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees,*90 NY2d 139, 143, citing *Matter of Canfora v Board of Trustees, supra,*at 351-352, citing *Matter of City of New York v Schoeck,*294 NY 559). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# The Attorney General of Texas December 28, 1978

Honorable Hal H.Hood Commissioner Firemen’s Pension Commission Sam Houston Building Austin, Texas 78701 Opinion No.H-l311 Re: man vice. The time at which a fireterminates his active serDear Commissioner Hood: You have requested an opinion regarding the construction of the Firemen’s Relief Pension fund,statute, article 6243e, V.T.C.S. Section 25A provides that upon termination of “active service” the retiree is entitled to the benefits and allowances in effect at the’time of his termination. You have asked when the termination of active service occurs in a particular instance. In April, 1977,a fireman went on sick leave. He was retained on the payroll and continued to make contributions to the pension fund. In May of 1978he was granted a disability retirement pension retroactive to April, 1977. Thus, from April to Mayofthe next year he wasdrawing the equivalent of his full salary while on sick leave and receiving pension benefits, albeit retroactively. This practice ispermissible. Attorney General Opinion H-1241 (1978); C-460 (1965). During this period the monthly pension benefits were increased. The question is whether he is entitled to those in effect in April, 1977,or May, 1978. It isnot asserted that the fireman continued inany active duty after April, 1977. Section 26defines an active fireman as one whoreceives a salary as a fireman. However, wedonot believe it follows that firemen who are drawing sick leave are onactive service while drawing such compensation. Webelieve that the fireman’s election to have his disability benefits retroactive to April, 1977, thereby determines his termination of active service. In Attorney General Opinion V-llO1(1950)it was concluded that a disability absence over one year did not count towards the twenty years of active service required to retire. This opinion supports the proposition that disability leave, for some purposes, is not active service. In addition, section 7, on the subject of disability retirement, provides inpart that

P. 5162Honorable Hal H.Hood - Page 2 (R-1311)

if and when such disability shall cease, such retirement or disability allowance shall be discontinued and such person shall be restored to active service at not less than the same salary he received at the time ofhis retirement for disability. Art. 6243e, S 7, V.T.C.S. (Emphasis added). We believe the implication of this section is that one cannot be considered on “active service” during the period of time for which he isdrawing disability retirement benefits. SUMMARY For purposes of section 25A, article 6243e, V.T.C.S., a fireman’s termination of active service is that date on which his disability retirement benefits begin to run. Very truly yours,

Attorney General ofTexas

- APPROVED: v

DAVIDM.KENDALL. First Assistant

C.ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jsn

p. 5163
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 8, 2017

p0905

Order 

Clerk

September 8, 2017

156248

In re N.L. CROSS, Minor.

SC: 156248

COA: 337703

Oakland CC Family Division:

2016-844890-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30264 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SCOTT HASHIMOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-101-R

- - - - - - - - - - March 4, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Scott Hashimoto appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(A). Hashimoto’s contention that the district court erroneously relied on the hearsay statements of unnamed codefendants is not supported by the record. See United States v. Manrique , 959 F.2dNo. 97-30264 -2-

1155, 1158 (5th Cir. 1992); F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(c)(1); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3. Hashimoto also argues that the district court clearly erred in imposing a two-level offense-level enhancement based on his role as a manager or supervisor in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court misapplied the guideline when it determined that Hashimoto’s exercise of “independent control over the drugs and money involved in the offense” satisfied the guideline requirements. See id ., comment. (n.2); United States v. Giraldo , 111 F.3d 21, 24 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 322 (1997). A defendant’s exercise of “management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization” may warrant an upward departure, but not an offense-level enhancement under § 3B1.1. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2); Giraldo , 111 F.3d at 24. Accordingly, Hashimoto’s sentence is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for resentencing as to this issue.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Kenneth M. Bate, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed thisAmendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of NitroMed, Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

Dated: May 22, 2007
|        | /s/ Kenneth M. Bate                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kenneth M. Bate                       |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3163 

To establish certain requirements relating to area mail processing studies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2009 

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To establish certain requirements relating to area mail 

processing studies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 

4 For purposes of this Act— 

5 (1) the term ‘‘AMP study’’ means an area mail 

6 processing study (as further defined in any manual 

7 or handbook prepared by the Postal Service) which 

8 relates to consolidating the operations of 2 or more 

9 postal facilities; and 

10 (2) the term ‘‘Postal Service’’ means the United 

11 States Postal Service. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3163 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO AMP STUDIES. 

2 (a) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF AN AMP 

3 STUDY.—The results of an AMP study shall not be cog4 nizable for any purpose unless such study is completed on 

5 or before— 

6 (1) the 180th day after the date on which such 

7 study is initiated (as determined under applicable 

8 provisions of the manual or handbook referred to in 

9 section 1(1)); or 

10 (2) such later date (following the 180th day re11 ferred to in paragraph (1)) as the Postal Service 

12 may determine, if— 

13 (A) that later date is not more than 60 

14 days after the 180th day referred to in para15 graph (1); and 

16 (B) notice of that later date is provided, on 

17 or before the 180th day referred to in para18 graph (1), to persons likely to be affected by 

19 the results of the study. 

20 (b) PRESERVATION OF STATUS QUO PENDING COM21 PLETION OF A STUDY.—The Postal Service shall ensure 

22 that no reduction in the workforce of, and no removal of 

23 equipment from, any postal facility occurs during the pe24 riod beginning on the date on which an AMP study is initi25 ated in connection with such facility and ending on the 

26 earliest of— 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3163 IH

1 (1) the date on which such study is completed; 

2 (2) the deadline for completion of such study 

3 under subsection (a); or 

4 (3) the date as of which the Postal Service re5 scinds its plans for the consolidation involved. 

6 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act shall apply with respect 

8 to— 

9 (1) any AMP study which is initiated on or 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act; and 

11 (2) any AMP study which is initiated before, 

12 and which remains pending on, the date of the en13 actment of this Act. 

14 (b) SPECIAL RULE.—In the case of an AMP study 

15 described in subsection (a)(2), section 2 shall be applied 

16 by treating any reference to the 180th day after the date 

17 on which such study is initiated to refer to such 180th 

18 day or the 60th day after the date of the enactment of 

19 this Act, whichever is later. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50053 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MAXIMILIANO MENDOZA

- GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 200

- 1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Maximiliano Mendoza

- Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed brief s in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendoza

- Garcia h a s not fil ed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief s and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 29, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50053 Document: 00515398719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2020No. 19

- 50053

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-50053 Document: 00515398719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
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.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

          - [Docket Number USTR-2017-0018]

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 26, 2017, requesting comments that will assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in an environmental review relating to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The document contained an incorrect docket number. The correct docket number is Docket Number USTR-2017-0018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions about submission of comments to Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475. Direct substantive questions to Sarah Stewart at (202) 395-7320.

*Correction:*                         In the                         **Federal Register**                         of September 26, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-20526, 82 FR 44868-69, correct the docket number wherever it appears to read Docket Number USTR-2017-0018.                    

Edward Gresser,

Chair, Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 2017-21772 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3290-F8-P
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-1749 UNI TED STATE S, Appellee,

v. MESFIN HAI

LE TUL LOCH, Defend ant, Appe llant.

ERRATA

The opinion of the court issued on August 12, 2004, is amended as follows:
1. The slip opinion is amended to include the following inadvertently omitted footnote, footnote 1, after the first full sentence on page 5 ("On remand, we direct the respective courts to strike the improper delegation from their written judgments."):

"In Tulloch's case, the oral sentence set the maximum number of drug tests at three. On remand, the district court must ensure that the amended judgment is consistent with its oral order. For reasons given below, we uphold the written drug testing condition imposed on Castillo, although it was not mentioned at sentencing. When, on remand, the district court strikes the improper delegation, "and thereafter as required by the probation officer," the portion remaining would require only one drug test during the supervised release period. Yet 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) requires a minimum of three drug tests. On remand , t he district court must ensure that the amended condition conforms to the statute." 2. Subsequent footnotes are to be renumbered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         108,472
<SECURITIES>                                   24,375
<RECEIVABLES>                                  640,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,322
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 773,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,242
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,670
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   773,845
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,893
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               97,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             32,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                23,708
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            23708
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      (7,969)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,739)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                   ------------

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Ortel Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-
91182 and 33-87540) on Forms S-8 of Ortel Corporation of our report dated May
22, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ortel Corporation and
subsidiaries as of April 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended April 30, 1998, and the related schedule,
which report appears in the April 30, 1998, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ortel
Corporation.



                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Los Angeles, California
July 28, 1998