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

- 25398905.2 Jurisdictions Restricting Masonry Heaters A non

- exclusive list jurisdictions that prohibit masonry heaters includes: California 1. Ba y Area Air Qualit y Management District (“BAAQMD”) (San Francisco and environs): Allows only EPA certified appliances

. 2. Kern County : Allows only pellet and EPA certified appliances. 3. City of Los Altos: Allows only pellet stoves and EPA certified appliances. 4. Marin County : Defers to the BAAQMD, and allows only pellet and EPA certified appliances. 5. San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District: Allows only pellet and EPA certified appliances. 6. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (Lake Tahoe and environs): Exempts pellet stoves but otherwise allow s onl y EPA certified appliances. Other 1. Town of Jackson, Wy oming: Excludes masonry fireplaces from the definition of “solid

fuel burning devices” and prohibits installation of devices not in compliance with EPA standards. 2. Numerous j urisdictions in , among other places, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Montana.
A non

- exclusive list of other jurisdictions that heavily and non

- uniformly regulate masonry heaters includes : 1. Maricopa Count y Air Pollution Control Dis trict: Allows masonry heaters and other devices onl y which meet “performance standards that are equivalent to the standards in 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA as amended through July 1, 1998, and that is approved b y the Control Officer and the Administrator of EPA”

. 2. Mendocino County

Air Quality

Management District: Allows masonry heaters, but requires a 10” veneer which essentially makes any masonry

heater built in conformity to be unable to perform its function. 3. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District : Has approved four masonry heater models (based on Washington and Colorado testing), but refuses to approve an y more. 4. Northern Sonoma Air Pollution Control District (Napa and environs): Formally a llows EPA certified or District

- approved masonry heaters, b ut the district has refused to approve an y m asonry

heater. 5. Missoula City

/County Health Department in Montana: A llows only pellet stoves inside the city limits. Outside the city

limits , only one masonry heater model b y the largest manufacturer Tulikivi has been approved, after petitioning based on the model’s Washington testing.
§ 36.2 Initiating action on grade standards. The Agency will develop, revise, suspend, or terminate grade standards if it determines that such action is in the public interest. Any standardization action should reflect the broad interest of individuals or an industry involved in manufacturing, producing, packaging, distributing, testing, consuming, or using the product; or the interest of a Federal, State, or local agency. Proposed actions should always be based on sound technical and marketing information and should include careful consideration of the factors that determine a commodity's quality and condition and that will allow trained personnel to determine objectively conformance or non-conformance. ( a ) AMS encourages interested parties to participate in the review, development, and revision of grade standards. Interested parties include growers, producers, processors, shippers, distributors, consumers, individuals or groups, trade associations, companies, and State or Federal agencies. Such groups and individuals may at any time recommend that AMS develop, revise suspend, or terminate a grade standard. Requests for Agency action should be in writing, preferably accompanied by a draft of the suggested change. ( 1 ) The Agency, in cooperation with interested parties, as applicable, will: ( i ) Determine the need for new or revised standards;
( ii ) Collect technical, marketing, or other appropriate data;
( iii ) Conduct research regarding new or revised standards, as appropriate; and,
( iv ) Draft the proposed standards;
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) If the Agency determines that new standards are needed, existing standards need to be revised, or the suspension or termination of existing standards is justified, it will undertake the action, with input from all interested parties.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS IV,

0-753945,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 4:03cv264-SPM/AK

JAMES R. McDONOUGH, as

Secretary, Florida Department of

Corrections, State of Florida,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AS TO JUROR CONDUCT ISSUE

This cause comes before the Court for a determination of whether a

certificate of appealability should issue pursuant to Petitioner’s notice of appeal

(doc. 13) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1). A petitioner seeking

a certificate of appealability must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

As to the first claim raised in the petition concerning the blood alcohol

evidence, for reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (doc. 8) and

order (doc. 11), the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Failure to anticipate a change in

Case 4:03-cv-00264-SPM-AK Document 15 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cv264-SPM/AK

the law does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, even if the change

is reasonably foreseeable. United States v. Ardley, 273 F.3d 991, 993-94 (11th

Cir. 2001). 

As to Petitioner’s second claim concerning juror conduct, the magistrate

judge’s recommendation to grant relief shows that the claim is debatable among

reasonable jurists. Thus Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. 

The court hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b), that Petitioner may appeal the denial of his § 2254 petition as to

the juror conduct claim. No certificate of appealability is issued for the blood

alcohol evidence claim. 

SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00264-SPM-AK Document 15 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Cooper, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Cooper*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 107.]

(No. 98-677

Submitted August 19, 1998-r

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*David H. Bodiker,*State Public Defender, and *Thomas R. Wetterer, Jr.,*Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RALPH C. O’DAY

, §

§ No. 34 , 201 5

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware in and

v. § for New Castle County

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0107018893

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 16 , 201 5

Decided: February 16 , 2015

O R D E R

This 16 th day of February 201 5

, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On January 29, 2015, the appellant, Ralph C. O’Day, filed this

appeal from his sentencing in the Superior Court on October 30, 2014 on a

violation of probation. O’Day also purported to appeal his November 21,

2013 sentencing.

( 2) O n January 29, 2015, the Senior Clerk issued a notice under

Supreme Co urt Rule 29(b) directing that O’Day show cause why th is appeal

should not be dismissed as untimely filed. U nder Supreme Court Rule 6(ii),

an appeal from a violation of probation must be filed within thirty days of

sentencing.2

(3) O’Day has not responded t o the notice to show cause within the

ten

- day period provided in Supreme Court Rule 29(b)

. Under Supreme

Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), O’Day ’s failure to respond to the notice to

show cause is deemed to be h is consent to the dismissal of this appeal.

NOW , THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules

3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

J ustice
#### June O’Connor, a minor, by Mary O’Connor, her mother and next friend, defendant in error, v. City of Chicago et al., defendants. City of Chicago, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,321.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, and A. M. Smietanka, City Attorney, for plaintiff in error; Quin O’Brien and James J. Donaher, Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Frank H. Novak, Assistant City Attorney, of counsel. Theodore Sharf, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2383 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2013 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the 

Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and 

southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2383 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. STAN MUSIAL VETERANS MEMORIAL BRIDGE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The new Interstate Route 70 

3 bridge over the Mississippi River that connects St. Louis, 

4 Missouri, to southwestern Illinois shall be known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

9 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Stan Musial Veterans 

10 Memorial Bridge’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
exv10w3






EXHIBIT 10.3




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

COOPER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

AMENDED AND RESTATED

DIRECTORS’ STOCK PLAN

(November 4, 2008 Restatement)



WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Cooper Industries, Ltd. Amended and Restated Directors’ Stock
Plan – November 4, 2008 Restatement (the “Stock Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors has approved amending the Stock Plan to eliminate income
deferrals under the Stock Plan other than for Restricted Stock Units, amend the vesting period for
Restricted Stock Units to provide that Restricted Stock Units will vest 100% when a director ceases
to serve on the Board, and clarify that all Restricted Stock Units granted to a director are
credited to the director’s account so as to be eligible for dividend equivalent accruals;



RESOLVED, effective as of February 9, 2009, the Stock Plan is hereby amended as follows:





	 	1.	 	The following sentence shall be added at the end of Section 5.1 of the Stock
Plan:
	 
	 	 	 	Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, no Deferral Election may be made
with respect to any Stock Award with a Grant Date after January 2, 2009.
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 6.1 of the Stock Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
	 
	 	 	 	Each Restricted Stock Unit represents the right to receive one share of Common Stock
upon the Participant ceasing to serve on the Board for any reason (“Restricted Stock
Unit”). A Participant cannot exchange his or her Restricted Stock Units for shares of
Common Stock prior to such Participant ceasing to serve on the Board. The Company
shall maintain on behalf of each Participant an account and credit to the account any
Restricted Stock Units granted to such Participant. Restricted Stock Units shall
remain unvested while a Participant continues to serve on the Board. When a
Participant ceases his or her service on the Board for any reason, all unvested
Restricted Stock Units shall immediately vest as of the date of the Participant’s
Separation from Service.





COOPER INDUSTRIES, LTD.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ James P. Williams
 

James P. Williams
	 	 
	 

	 	Senior Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	Human Resources
§ 3430.34 Evaluation criteria. ( a ) *General.* To ensure any project receiving funds from NIFA is consistent with the broad goals of the funding program, the content of each proposal/application submitted to NIFA will be evaluated based on a pre-determined set of review criteria. It is the responsibility of the Program Officer to develop, adopt, adapt, or otherwise establish the criteria by which proposals are to be evaluated. It may be appropriate for the Program Officer to involve other scientists or stakeholders in the development of criteria, or to extract criteria from legislative authority or appropriations language. The review criteria are described in the RFA and shall not include criteria concerning any cost sharing or matching requirements per section 103(a)(3) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)(3)).
( b ) *Guidance for reviewers.* In order that all potential applicants for a program have similar opportunities to compete for funds, all reviewers will receive from the Program Officer a description of the review criteria. Reviewers are instructed to use those same evaluation criteria, and only those criteria, to judge the merit of the proposals they review.
( c ) *Center of Excellence status.* All eligible applicants will be competitively peer reviewed (as described in Part V, A. and B. of the RFA), and ranked in accordance with the evaluation criteria. Those that rank highly meritorious and requested to be considered as a center of excellence will be further evaluated by the peer panel to determine whether they have met the criteria to be a center of excellence. In instances where they are found to be equally meritorious with the application of a non-center of excellence, based on peer review, selection for funding will be weighed in favor of applicants meeting the center of excellence criteria. NIFA will effectively use the center of excellence prioritization as a “tie breaker”. Applicants that rank highly meritorious but who did not request consideration as a center of excellence or who are not deemed to have met the center of excellence standards may still receive funding.
[74 FR 45740, Sept. 4, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 21109, May 5, 2017]
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Innophos, Inc.
at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                   |  |                                                                         
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2006 |  |                                                                         
|                   |  | /s/ RICHARD HEYSE                                                       
|                   |  | Richard Heyse                                                           
|                   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
PUBLIC LAW 106–238—JULY 6, 2000 114 STAT. 491

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2952:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 146 (2000):

Mar. 8, considered and passed House.

June 23, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–238

106th Congress

An Act

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100

Orchard Park Drive in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Keith D. Oglesby Station’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

100 Orchard Park Drive in Greenville, South Carolina, and known

as the Orchard Park Station, shall be known and designated as

the ‘‘Keith D. Oglesby Station’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Keith D.

Oglesby Station’’.

Approved July 6, 2000.

July 6, 2000

[H.R. 2952]
CERTIFICATIONS

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2
I, Jose Gustavo Brasil, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NITAR TECH CORP.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 have;

     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 quarterly report is being prepared;

     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

     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report (the registrant's fourth 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 officers 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):

     All significant deficiencies and material weakness 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

     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.

     Date: May 25, 2006                              /S/ JOSE GUSTAVO BRASIL
                                                     -------------------------
                                                      Jose Gustavo Brasil
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### § 29.106 Who may be employed, licensed, or authorized.

Any persons who is not financially interested directly or indirectly in merchandising tobacco, except as a grower or except in disposing of tobacco previously acquired, and who has demonstrated his competency may be employed, licensed, or authorized to inspect, sample, or weigh tobacco. Licenses issued by the Secretary shall be countersigned by a supervising official of the Division. Licenses to inspect or to sample shall specify the type or types of tobacco which the licensee is authorized to inspect or sample.
Exhibit 32.1



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



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of O2 Secure Wireless, a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:



1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.     The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ T. Scott Conley

T. Scott Conley, Chief Executive Officer



Date: May 15, 2006





{A0032167.DOC}
#### In the Matter of Patricia Barry, Respondent, v. Allan Barry, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated *541October 8, 1968, which directed, appellant to pay $50 per week for the support of the parties’ child. Order reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the court below for a further hearing at which proof shall be adduced consistent herewith. Appellant is directed to continue paying $40 per week, on account of the child’s support, in the interim, consistent with one of the conditions in the order of Mr. Justice A. David Benjamin, of this court, dated November 18, 1968. The record is deficient of any proof indicating the child’s needs. The party petitioning for support of a minor should, in the first instance, offer proof of the child’s requirements *(Matter of Silvestris*v. *Silvestris,*24 A D 2d 247, 250). Furthermore, the summary fashion in which appellant’s visitation rights were denied requires us to direct reconsideration of that aspect of the proceeding by the Family Court. Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
** **

**Exhibit32.1**

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

In connection with theaccompanying Quarterly Report of Linn Energy, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael C. Linn,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 15, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Michael C. Linn                             |   |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Michael C. Linn                                 |
|                  |   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----