alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1300.51 Sanctions—reduction of apportionment. ( a ) *Determination of sanctions.* ( 1 ) The Administrator shall not apportion any funds under Section 402 to any State that does not have or is not implementing an approved highway safety program.
( 2 ) If the Administrator has apportioned funds under Section 402 to a State and subsequently determines that the State is not implementing an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall reduce the apportionment by an amount equal to not less than 20 percent until such time as the Administrator determines that the State is implementing an approved highway safety program. The Administrator shall consider the gravity of the State's failure to implement an approved highway safety program in determining the amount of the reduction. ( i ) When the Administrator determines that a State is not implementing an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall issue to the State an advance notice, advising the State that the Administrator expects to withhold funds from apportionment or reduce the State's apportionment under Section 402. The Administrator shall state the amount of the expected withholding or reduction.
( ii ) The State may, within 30 days after its receipt of the advance notice, submit documentation demonstrating that it is implementing an approved highway safety program. Documentation shall be submitted to the NHTSA Administrator, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
( b ) *Apportionment of withheld funds.* ( 1 ) If the Administrator concludes that a State has begun implementing an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall promptly apportion to the State the funds withheld from its apportionment, but not later than July 31 of the fiscal year for which the funds were withheld.
( 2 ) ( i ) If the Administrator concludes, after reviewing all relevant documentation submitted by the State or if the State has not responded to the advance notice, that the State did not correct its failure to have or implement an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall issue a final notice, advising the State of the funds being withheld from apportionment or of the reduction of apportionment under Section 402 by July 31 of the fiscal year for which the funds were withheld.
( ii ) The Administrator shall reapportion the withheld funds to the other States, in accordance with the formula specified in 23 U.S.C. 402(c), not later than the last day of the fiscal year.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 2/17/2012

Sample Number: 120492-001 Date Collected: 02/01/2012 09:15 Date Received: 2/1/2012

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 313 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/02/2012 15:15 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120492-002 Date Collected: 02/01/2012 09:15 Date Received: 2/1/2012

1st Stage Feed Dissolved

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 282 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/02/2012 15:20 EPA 200.8

Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 172 ug/L 10 2 TLT 02/13/2012 AEP Method

Sample Number: 120492-003 Date Collected: 02/01/2012 09:15 Date Received: 2/1/2012

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 2.04 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/02/2012 15:24 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120492-004 Date Collected: 02/01/2012 09:15 Date Received: 2/1/2012

2nd Stage Feed Dissolved

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 0.966 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/02/2012 15:29 EPA 200.8

Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) < 0.200 ug/L 0.2 0.04 TLT 02/13/2012 AEP Method

Sample Number: 120492-005 Date Collected: 02/01/2012 09:15 Date Received: 2/1/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 5.05 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/02/2012 15:34 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 120492-006 Date Collected: 02/01/2012 09:15 Date Received: 2/1/2012

Bioreactor Effluent Dissolved

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 2.53 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 02/02/2012 15:38 EPA 200.8

Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 1.93 ug/L 0.2 0.04 TLT 02/13/2012 AEP Method

Mountaineer Plant, 120492 Page 1 of 2
THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 120492 Page 2 of 2
### §428j. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 26, 1928, ch. 248, §11, 45 Stat. 369, appropriated $50,000 to be expended for purposes of sections 428 to 428d, 428e to 428i of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                   FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited
                                                               Emporium Building
                                                                       4th Floor
                                                               69th Front Street
                                                                 Hamilton, HM 12
                                                                         BERMUDA


18 February 1999

GE Capital Project Finance VI Limited
Clarendon House
Church Street West
Hamilton HM 11
Bermuda

Dear Sirs

REGISTRATION RIGHTS

We agree that the registration rights applicable to the Class B shares held by
you in the capital of FLAG Limited, shall apply to the ordinary shares in the
capital of FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited which are to be issued to you in
exchange for the transfer of such shares to us.

Regards.



Director
RELEASE OF GUARANTOR

         Kojaian  Holdings  LLC  ("Kojaian"),  a  Guarantor  under that  certain
Guaranty  dated as of May 27,  1999  executed  by  Kojaian,  ASC  Holdings  LLC,
API/JPE, Inc. and SAC Corporation  ("Guaranty")  guarantying all Indebtedness of
JPE, Inc., Brake, Axle and Tandem Company Canada,  Inc., Dayton Parts, Inc., JPE
Finishing,  Inc., Plastic Trim, Inc. and Starboard Industries,  Inc. to Comerica
Bank is hereby released from its obligations and liabilities under the Guaranty.

         All  Capitalized  terms  used but not  defined  herein  shall  have the
meanings given to them in the Guaranty.

Dated: December 30, 1999

                                  COMERICA BANK

                                                     By: /s/ Richard S. Arceci
                                                         ---------------------
                                                             Richard S. Arceci

                                                     Its:    Vice President
                                                             --------------


Acknowledged by and
Agreed to this 30 day of
December, 1999:

ASC HOLDINGS LLC

By: /s/ David L. Treadwell
   -----------------------
        David L. Treadwell

Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
     -------------------------------------


API/JPE, INC.

By:/s/ David L. Treadwell
   -----------------------
       David L. Treadwell

Its: Chairman
     --------


SAC CORPORATION

By: /s/ David L. Treadwell
    ----------------------
        David L. Treadwell

Its: Chairman
     --------
(No. 82-CC-0623

#### *In re*Application of Jean C. Rawson.

*Opinion filed March 1, 1982.*

Stephen A. Frew, for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Kathleen O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Roe, C. J.

This is an application for benefits filed pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 48, par. 281 *et seq.),*by Jean C. Rawson, widow of deputy fire chief Dean L. Rawson, who was employed in that capacity by the city of Rockford, Illinois, and who died on July 26, 1981.

The decedent is survived by his wife, the Applicant herein, and pursuant to section 3 of the Act she would be entitled to the entire sum of any benefits paid under the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 48, par. 283.

Based upon the report filed by the office of the Attorney General and the rest of the record in this matter we find the circumstances surrounding the death to have *416been as follows. On October 5, 1981, decedent was on call for the Rockford Fire Department as the ranking officer in Rockford at the time. A disturbance arose outside his home. Because he had his fire department car in his driveway he went outside to lock the doors. Shortly thereafter he became involved in the disturbance, was assaulted, and died 12 hours later. The cause of death was brain herniation due to brain contusion and subdural hematoma due to an accelerated fall on the back of the head. Contained in the written witness reports which were filed by the Applicant and the Attorney General are certain statements to the effect that the decedent became involved in the melee of his own volition and may have contributed in some manner to his death. However, the Attorney General’s investigation report found that there was nothing in the circumstances to indicate decedent’s death was caused by his wilful misconduct and we note that the statements otherwise were made by persons involved in the disturbance which brought decedent out of his home. We find no wilful misconduct.

The Attorney General’s report concludes that it was unable to determine whether deputy chief Rawson’s death meets the requisite of being “killed in the line of duty” as defined in the Act. However, based on the entire record, we find that he was so killed in the line of duty. He was the ranking officer in the city at the time. He was on call at the time. He had a fire department vehicle in his driveway which would have had to have been used had he been called in on an emergency. After becoming aware of a disturbance outside and near his vehicle he obviously felt the need to secure it. In the course of his doing so he was killed.

Jean C. Rawson is hereby awarded the sum of $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars and no cents).
### **CHAPTER 9B—NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT**

Sec.
760aa.
Findings and purposes.
760aa–1.
Gifts to system and particular national fish hatcheries.
760aa–2.
Volunteer enhancement pilot projects.
760aa–3.
Community partnership enhancement.
760aa–4.
Hatchery education program development.
§ 54.300 Admission. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be denied admission, or be subjected to discrimination in admission, by any recipient to which §§ 54.300 through §§ 54.310 apply, except as provided in §§ 54.225 and §§ 54.230.
( b ) *Specific prohibitions.* ( 1 ) In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which §§ 54.300 through 54.310 apply shall not: ( i ) Give preference to one person over another on the basis of sex, by ranking applicants separately on such basis, or otherwise;
( ii ) Apply numerical limitations upon the number or proportion of persons of either sex who may be admitted; or
( iii ) Otherwise treat one individual differently from another on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for admission that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless the use of such test or criterion is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable.
( c ) *Prohibitions relating to marital or parental status.* In determining whether a person satisfies any policy or criterion for admission, or in making any offer of admission, a recipient to which §§ 54.300 through 54.310 apply: ( 1 ) Shall not apply any rule concerning the actual or potential parental, family, or marital status of a student or applicant that treats persons differently on the basis of sex;
( 2 ) Shall not discriminate against or exclude any person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, or establish or follow any rule or practice that so discriminates or excludes;
( 3 ) Subject to § 54.235(d), shall treat disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability or physical condition; and
( 4 ) Shall not make pre-admission inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for admission, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.” A recipient may make pre-admission inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for admission, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
Denied and Opinion Filed February 2, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00046-CV 

IN RE MICHAEL C. WADE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 397th Judicial District Court 

Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 051329 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Before the Court is relator’s January 12, 2017 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s 

petition does not include any appendix materials and is not certified as required by rule 52.3. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a) (appendix must contain certified or sworn 

copy of order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of); TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.7(a) (relator must file with petition certified or sworn copy of every document 

material to relator’s claim for relief). It is relator’s burden to provide the court with a record 

sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992); 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). He has not done so here. Accordingly, we deny relator’s 

January 12, 2017 petition for writ of mandamus. 

170046F.P05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32



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 NMXS.com, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and the principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certify 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.



Date:  May 16, 2005





/s/ Richard Govatski

Richard Govatski, President

(Principal Executive Officer)









/s/ Teresa Dickey

Teresa Dickey, Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 20, 2008

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

SANDRA C. LEISTER, ] Appeals from the United

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for

 Cross-Appellant, ] the Central District of

 ] Illinois.

Nos. 07-2242, 07-3615 & 07-3671 v. ]

 ] No. 05 C 2115

MICHELLE PETERSON, EVAN PETERSON ]

and DOVETAIL, INCORPORATED, ] Harold A. Baker,

 Defendants-Appellants, ] Judge.

 Cross-Appellees. ] 

Upon consideration of the PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT’S

MOTION TO MODIFY OPINION, filed on November 6, 2008, by counsel for the plaintiff,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED to the extent that the slip opinion of

October 23, 2008 is amended as follows:

On line 12 of page 14 of the opinion, the phrase “May 2001" shall be amended to

read “May 2000".
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00019-CV

Emmanuel John, d/b/a Americo Express, Appellant

v.

RLJ Equities, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-19-005325, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On January 7, 2020, appellant Emmanuel John, d/b/a Americo Express filed a

notice of appeal. John appeals from a final judgment signed by the trial court on October 29, 

2019. Because the judgment was signed on October 29, 2019, the notice of appeal was due to be 

filed on or before December 1, 2019.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (requiring notice of appeal to be 

filed within 30 days after judgment is signed); see also id. R. 4.1(a) (extending time period to file 

to next day that is not legal holiday when last day of period falls on legal holiday). That 

December 1, 2019 deadline might have been extended until December 16, 2019, if John had filed 

either a notice of appeal with the trial court or a motion for extension of time with this Court 

1 John filed an untimely motion for new trial on December 26, 2019. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 

329b (establishing that motion for new trial must be filed prior to or within 30 days after 

judgment is signed). Because his motion for new trial was untimely, it did not extend the 

deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1) (extending deadline to 

file notice of appeal to 90 days if any party timely files motion for new trial).
2

within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See id. R. 26.3; Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (Tex. 1997) (“[O]nce the period for granting a motion for 

extension of time under Rule 41(a)(2) [now Rule 26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke 

the appellate court’s jurisdiction.”). John’s January 7, 2020 notice of appeal is untimely, and we 

therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b) (providing that filing 

notice of appeal invokes appellate court’s jurisdiction), id. R. 2 (establishing that appellate court 

may not alter time for perfecting appeal in civil case).

On January 13, 2020, appellee RLJ Equities, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal, asserting that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal for the reasons stated above. 

To date, no response has been filed. See id. R. 10.3(a) (providing that court of appeals should 

not determine motion until 10 days after motion was filed). Accordingly, we grant appellee’s 

motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 6, 2020
§ 1235.2 Definitions. Terms used in this part are defined as follows: ( a ) *International Symbol of Access* means the symbol adopted by Rehabilitation International in 1969 at its Eleventh World Congress on Rehabilitation of the Disabled.
( b ) *Persons with disabilities which limit or impair the ability to walk* means persons who, as determined by a licensed physician: ( 1 ) Cannot walk two hundred feet without stopping to rest; or
( 2 ) Cannot walk without the use of, or assistance from, a brace, cane, crutch, another person, prosthetic device, wheelchair, or other assistive device; or
( 3 ) Are restricted by lung disease to such an extent that the person's forced (respiratory) expiratory volume for one second, when measured by spirometry, is less than one liter, or the arterial oxygen tension is less than sixty mm/hg on room air at rest; or
( 4 ) Use portable oxygen; or
( 5 ) Have a cardiac condition to the extent that the person's functional limitations are classified in severity as Class III or Class IV according to standards set by the American Heart Association; or
( 6 ) Are severely limited in their ability to walk due to an arthritic, neurological, or orthopedic condition.
( c ) *Special license plate* means a license plate that displays the International Symbol of Access: ( 1 ) In a color that contrasts to the background, and
( 2 ) In the same size as the letters and/or numbers on the plate.
( d ) *Removable windshield placard* means a two-sided, hanger-style placard which includes on each side: ( 1 ) The International Symbol of Access, which is at least three inches in height, centered on the placard, and is white on a blue shield;
( 2 ) An identification number;
( 3 ) A date of expiration; and
( 4 ) The seal or other identification of the issuing authority.
( e ) *Temporary removable windshield placard* means a two-sided, hanger-style placard which includes on each side: ( 1 ) The International Symbol of Access, which is at least three inches in height, centered on the placard, and is white on a red shield;
( 2 ) An identification number;
( 3 ) A date of expiration; and
( 4 ) The seal or other identification of the issuing authority.
### §410aaa–74. Management of newly acquired lands

Any lands within the boundaries of a wilderness area designated under this Act which are acquired by the Federal Government, shall become part of the wilderness area within which they are located and shall be managed in accordance with all the provisions of this Act and other laws applicable to such wilderness area.

(Pub. L. 103–433, title VII, §704, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4497.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is defined in section 3 of Pub. L. 103–433, which is set out as a Definitions note under section 410aaa of this title.
§ 51.34 Expedited consideration. ( a ) When a submitting authority is required under State law or local ordinance or otherwise finds it necessary to implement a change within the 60-day period following submission, it may request that the submission be given expedited consideration. The submission should explain why such consideration is needed and provide the date by which a determination is required.
( b ) Jurisdictions should endeavor to plan for changes in advance so that expedited consideration will not be required and should not routinely request such consideration. When a submitting authority demonstrates good cause for expedited consideration the Attorney General will attempt to make a decision by the date requested. However, the Attorney General cannot guarantee that such consideration can be given.
( c ) Notice of the request for expedited consideration will be given to interested parties registered under § 51.32.