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

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

June 7, 2013 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

George T. Czerniak 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Blvd. (A-18J) 

Chicago Il, 60604-3509 

Dear Mr. Czerniak: 

Let me express my appreciation for the opportunity to meet with you and your staff last week to 

address Veolia Environmental Services' concerns regarding the re-opening of our Title V permit 

and the tiining of our Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT). 

Regarding the re-opening of our permit, it was encouraging to hear that it was never USEPA's 

intent, should Veolia appeal to the 7 tl' Circuit Court, to force Veolia to implement the draft reopened permit conditions prior to the ruling on the appeal. This commitment is very important 

to Veolia and greatly appreciated. However, we do remain concerned with many of the specific 

items contained within the draft re-opened permit. 

Our first concern is the manner in which the re-opening was conducted. Furthermore, the permit 

was reopened 4 1/2 years into its 5 year duration. As we mentioned in our meeting, with the 

permit renewal application in process, the re-opening of the permit occurring at the same time is 

redundant, unnecessary, and costly for both the USEPA and Veolia. 

We appreciate your commitment to provide Veolia with an approved CPT test plan by the end of 

June 2013 so Veolia can meet its 60 day public notice period prior to commencing its testing. 

However, as we discussed in the meeting, Veolia believes that the changing of the CPT schedule 

deviates from earlier agreements with USEPA. With USEPA's changing of the CPT schedule, 

both Veolia and USEPA could be subjected to potential lawsuits by environmental groups. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, 1L 62201 

(618) 271 -2804 

www.veoliaes.com 
Q)VEOLIA 

ENVIRONMENTA!_ SERV(CES 

Veolia would suggest that you please review the documents and discussions that we had with 

your predecessor in 2008 and the precedent set by subsequent testing schedules that were 

approved by the USEPA after the 2009 CPTs were performed. We believe a return to the 

original testing schedules would eliminate the potential for lawsuits by environmental groups and 

constitutes fair treatment to Veolia. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and your staff and we look forward to 

continuing to work with you. 

Very truly yours, 

f 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

#7 Mobile Avenue, Sauget, IL 62201 

(618) 271-2804 

www.veoliaes.com
#### SMITH v. SCHNEIDER et ux.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Statute of Frauds—Promise to Pay Debt of Another—Consideration —Cancellation of Lease.

Where tenants agree with a third person, who owns premises leased by the landlord, that, if he will release their landlord, so he can occupy his own premises, in which event he will in turn release them, they will save such third person from loss of rent, their agreement is not within the statute of frauds.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Charles J. Smith against Frederick Schneider and wife. From a.judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

M. Strassman, for appellants.

H. S. J. Flynn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Justice found for plaintiff. In April, 1902, one Lautenschlager owned No. 168 Avenue A, but was tenant in 164 Avenue A. Defendants, husband and wife, were.tenants in No. 168, and wanted to move into No. 167 Avenue A. " Their lease of No. 168 *239ran to May 1, 1903. Lautenschlager’s lease of No. 164 ran to February 1, 1903. Plaintiff owned No. 164. Lautenschlager wanted to move into his own place, No.' 168. Under these circumstances the parties got together and agreed that plaintiff should release Lautenschlager, who, in turn, should release defendants, but defendants agreed (both of them, as sworn to by plaintiff) that they would make good any loss of rental suffered by' plaintiff. The rent was $30 a month. During December, 1902, and January, 1903, the plaintiff got no rent for the said premises, and he sued defendants for $60, and got judgment. The only question is the statute of frauds. Was the agreement between plaintiff and defendants a verbal agreement or promise of defendants to pay the debt of another; i. e., of Lautenschlager? As we have seen, defendants wanted their landlord, Lautenschlager, to release them. He refused unless plaintiff would release him. Plaintiff agreed to do this if defendants would guaranty him against loss, which the defendants did. Defendants got a good consideration for this guaranty. They did not undertake to pay the debt of another, within the meaning of the statute, but contracted, in consideration of their own release by Lautenschlager, that they would save plaintiff harmless if any loss should occur through the release by plaintiff of Lautenschlager.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ George G. Usher 
George G. Usher, 
Chief Executive Officer
April 30, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
MICHAEL DEWAYNE ADAMS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1293

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed September 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

.

Michael Dewayne Adams , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assi stant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
**CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
TO**
 **18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of DCAP Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 
  Date:
      May 13, 2005
    /s/
      Barry Goldstein
      Barry
      Goldstein,
      Chief
      Executive Officer and
      Chief
      Financial Officer
#### 1403.104-2 Applicability.

Construction contracts (or subcontracts in such cases where the tribal contractor has subcontracted the activity) awarded under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638, as amended, are subject to the provisions promulgated under that Act.
#### 15.101-3 Tiered evaluation of small business offers.

An agency shall not create a tiered (or “cascading”) evaluation of offers, as described in 13 CFR 125.2, for multiple-award contracts unless an agency has statutory authority.

[85 FR 11756, Feb. 27, 2020]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
RULES 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Marla Schaefer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Claires Stores, Inc. (the
Company), certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the 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; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in 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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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, including its 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 conclusions about 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 the registrant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 over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. June 10, 2004
    /s/ Marla SchaeferMarla SchaeferCo-Chief Executive Officer
ED 524B Page 1 of 3

U.S. Department of Education

Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)

Project Status Chart

PR/Award # (11 characters): ______________________

SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

1. Project Objective [ ] Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

1.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data

Raw 

Number Ratio %

Raw 

Number Ratio %

 / /

1.b. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data

Raw 

Number Ratio %

Raw 

Number Ratio %

 / /

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

OMB No. 1894-0003

Exp. 07/31/2024
ED 524B Page 2 of 3

U.S. Department of Education

Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)

Project Status Chart

PR/Award # (11 characters): ______________________

SECTION A - Performance Objectives Information and Related Performance Measures Data (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

2. Project Objective [ ] Check if this is a status update for the previous budget period.

2.a. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data

Raw 

Number Ratio %

Raw 

Number Ratio %

 / /

2.b. Performance Measure Measure Type Quantitative Data

Target Actual Performance Data

Raw 

Number Ratio %

Raw 

Number Ratio %

 / /

Explanation of Progress (Include Qualitative Data and Data Collection Information)

OMB No. 1894-0003

Exp. 07/31/2024
ED 524B Page 3 of 3

U.S. Department of Education

Grant Performance Report (ED 524B)

Project Status Chart

PR/Award # (11 characters): ______________________

SECTION B - Budget Information (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

SECTION C - Additional Information (See Instructions. Use as many pages as necessary.)

OMB No. 1894-0003

Exp. 07/31/2024
1446.170 Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP). ( a ) COs shall encourage contractors and subcontractors to participate in the GIDEP, a cooperative program managed and funded by the U.S. Government to exchange engineering, failure experience, metrology, product information, and reliability-maintain ability data on products, components (including construction materials), manufacturing processes, environmental issues associated with those manufacturing processes, recycling and waste prevention.
( b ) The GIDEP is managed for the U.S. Government by the Department of the Navy. GIDEP participants are not subject to any fees or assessments other than the costs associated with dissemination of information by other than electronic means.
( c ) An application to participate in the GIDEP may be obtained at *http://www.gidep.org .* COs shall include information on GIDEP in solicitation documents and during discussions at preaward and postaward conferences.
Fiscal Year 2007 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - HAWAII

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2007 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1500001 Hawaii County 6,739,461 1,347,892 1,954.60

1500003 Honolulu County 28,067,551 5,613,510 2,210.91

1500005 Kalawao County 0 0 0.00

1500007 Kauai County 1,533,620 306,724 1,547.55

1500009 Maui County 3,298,325 659,665 1,659.95

1599998 Undistributed 0 0 0.00

1599999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0.00

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2007 for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available

 under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
15.507 Protests against award. ( a ) Protests against award in negotiated acquisitions shall be handled in accordance with part 33. Use of agency protest procedures that incorporate the alternative dispute resolution provisions of Executive Order 12979 is encouraged for both preaward and postaward protests.
( b ) If a protest causes the agency, within 1 year of contract award, to— ( 1 ) Issue a new solicitation on the protested contract award, the contracting officer shall provide the information in paragraph (c) of this section to all prospective offerors for the new solicitation; or
( 2 ) Issue a new request for revised proposals on the protested contract award, the contracting officer shall provide the information in paragraph (c) of this section to offerors that were in the competitive range and are requested to submit revised proposals.
( c ) The following information will be provided to appropriate parties: ( 1 ) Information provided to unsuccessful offerors in any debriefings conducted on the original award regarding the successful offeror's proposal; and
( 2 ) Other nonproprietary information that would have been provided to the original offerors.
#### In the Matter of Northampton Colony, Inc., Appellant, v. Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to annul a determination of the respondent Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, denying the petitioner’s application for a variance of the local zoning ordinance so as to permit the erection of a restaurant and retail stores, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 14, 1961, which dismissed its petition. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Willie Brown et al., Respondents, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Intervenor-Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to any party and declaratory judgment granted in favor of plaintiff in accordance with paragraph 3 of the prayer for relief contained in the complaint. Memorandum: In *Wallace*v. *Universal Ins. Co.*(18 A D 2d 121, affd. 13 N Y 2d 978), relied upon by respondent, the insured furnished a written statement of facts which if believed, could exculpate him, verified an answer and discussed the ease with insurer’s attorney in anticipation of an examination before trial, but the insurer was not diligent in using the information available to locate him to appear as a witness at the examination before trial. Here, in reporting the accident the following day to his insurance agent, who prepared the MV 104, the insured falsely stated that another person was driving the car and that he was a passenger. In his statement to the insurer about six months later he said that his cousin, a soldier stationed in Florida, was the driver. It developed that the alleged driver was a mythical person and that the insured was the driver. Therefore the *Wallace*case has no application. We conclude that the attitude of the insured was one of “willful and avowed obstruction ” *(Coleman*v. *New Amsterdam Cas. Co.,*247 N. Y. 271, 276), that by making false statements concerning the facts of the accident the insured breached the condition of co-operation and seriously prejudiced the insurer in handling the claims and lawsuits arising out of the accident. (See *United States Fid. & Guar. Co.,*v. *von Bargen,*7 A D 2d 872, affd. 7 N Y 2d 932; *General Mut. Ins. Co.*v. *Grempel,*17 A D 2d 650.) (Appeal from judgment of Ontario Trial Term denying a declaratory judgment to plaintiff and requiring plaintiff to defend certain pending actions.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
#### § 94.2 Applicability.

The provisions of this part apply to the Military Departments.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00037-CV

JAMES NICHOLS, MELISSA NICHOLS, 

MARTHA MOORE, AND EDWARD NICHOLS, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIRS OF THE 

ESTATE OF MELODY NICHOLS,

Appellants

v.

STEVE MCKINNEY,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 89372

O R D E R

We ordered the parties to mediation on May 23, 2018. Mediation was to take place 

within 30 days from the date of the order. The parties filed a timely joint objection to 

mediation. We have not yet ruled on that objection. The parties have now filed a Joint 

Request for Extension of Time to Mediate. 
Nichols v. McKinney Page 2

The request is granted. The mediation order issued on May 23, 2018 is stayed until 

further order of the Court. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Judge Towslee Corbett1

Mediation stayed

Request dismissed

Order issued and filed June 20, 2018

 

1 The Honorable Reva Towslee Corbett, Judge of the 335th District Court of Bastrop, Burleson, Lee, and 

Washington Counties, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to 

section 74.003(h) of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.003(h) (West 2013).
# Loan _Volume

# Quarterly

# Historical