alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPA 17 

•
 RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 145
 

Liquids in Landfills III 

60 FR 35703-35706
 

July 11, 1995
 

(RCRA Cluster VI, HSWA provisions)
 

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION 

WAC 173-303-

STATE ANALOG IS: 

EQUIV. LESS MORE BROADER 

ALENT STRlN· STRlN- IN SCOPE 

GENT GENT 

PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREAT
 

MENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
 

SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
 

t SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS 

replace the period at 264.314(e)(2)(ii) 140(4)(b)(iv)(A)(II) X 

the end ofthe 

paragraph with "; or" 

add new paragraph; 264.314(e)(2)(iii) 140(4)(b)(iv)(A)(I1I) X 

sorbent material is 

determined to be nonbiodegradable under 

OECD test 301B • PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 

SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
 

t SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS
 

replace the period at 265.314(f)(2)(ii) 140(4)(b)(iv)(A)(II) . X 

the end of the 

paragraph with "; or" 

add new paragraph; 265.314(f)(2)(iii) 140(4)(b)(iv)(A)(I1I) X 

sorbent material is 

determined to be nonbiodegradable under 

OECD test 301B 

• CLI45.P51 - Revised: 8/6/97 

Printed: 7/29/98 July 11, 1995 - Page 1 of 1
# C_2014361EN.01002501.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/25

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-612/14)

2014/C 361/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

| — | in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
   (1).

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

1

---
The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge 1

for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District 2

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report

and recommendation of the Honorable H. David Young, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3203

___________

Charles Patterson, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Larry Norris, Director, *

Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 12, 1997

 Filed: March 28, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District 1

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Patterson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28

2

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Patterson contends that the sixteen-month, six-day

delay in bringing him to trial in state court--in part the product of his

two intervening federal criminal trials--
-2-

constituted a denial of his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment

and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and his due process rights. The

State argues that these claims are procedurally barred and are without

merit. We reach the merits of Patterson’s claims, and affirm for the

reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, particularly its finding

that Patterson suffered no prejudice from the delay. The judgment is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Terry L. Alston, certify that:

l.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Community National Bancorporation;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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)	[Intentionally omitted]

(c)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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

(d)	Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2003.

/S/ Terry L. Alston
Terry L. Alston
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 10, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 13
- 007 83
- CV No. 05
- 13
- 00784
- CV

IN RE DONALD GENE BL ANTON , Relator Original Proceeding from the 86th District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23078
- 86, 23592
- 86
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges , Francis, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Lewis Relator contends the Kaufman County District Clerk has not compl ied with an order of this Court relating to a supplemental record for relator’s direct appeals . The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the district clerk

. See T EX

. G OV = T C ODE A NN

. ' 22.221 (West 2010). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator = s petition for a writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

130783F.P05 /David Lewis/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.1
 ZIX CORPORATION
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
(CEO & Direct Reports)
    Definitions
 Acceleration Event
 Acquiring Person
  1




---



##### 



Affiliate and Associate
 Change in Control
        2




---



##### 



Continuing Director .
 Disability
 Exchange Act
 Resignation.
 Retirement
 Term of Option
 Exercise of Option .
 Exercise
 Adjustment
  3




---



##### 



Method of Exercise
    Termination of Option
   4




---



##### 



nolo contendere
  No Rights as Shareholder .
 State and Federal Securities Regulation .
  5




---



##### 



Modification of Options .
 Withholding of Taxes .
 Continued Employment Not Presumed .
 Non-Competition Covenants .
   6




---



##### 



either either
      7




---



##### 



Option Issued Pursuant to Plan
 No Liability of Option .
 No Assignment .
 Governing Law .
 Entire Agreement .
  8




---



##### 



Notice .
 ZIX CORPORATIONDate: 10/29/08
    By:
    /s/ Barry W. WilsonBarry W. WilsonVP, Accounting & Finance and Treasurer  9




---



##### 



Zix Corporation (TX)2711 N. Haskell Avenue
    
    Signature PageSuite 2200
    
    Sign and return to the legal departmentDallas, Texas 75204United States
  Effective Date of Grant:
    
    October 16,2008Name of Optionee:
    
    Conner, SusanNumber of Shares:
    
    130,000.00Exercise Price:
    
    $1.70Plan Name:
    
    2003 New Employee Stock Option PlanExpiration Date:
    
    October 15, 2018Issuance Type:
    
    OPTNumber of Shares:
    
    Vest Date:10,833.00
    
    January 16, 200910,834.00
    
    April 16, 200910,833.00
    
    July 16, 200910,833.00
    
    October 16, 200910,834,00
    
    January 16, 201010,833.00
    
    April 16, 201010,833.00
    
    July 16, 201010,834.00
    
    October 16, 201010,833.00
    
    January 16, 201110,833.00
    
    April 16, 201110,834.00
    
    July 16, 201110,833.00
    
    October 16, 2011
 /s/ Susan K. Conner

Optionee Signature
    
    Date: 102908
 Equity Enterprise 2007.1.3.600
    
    Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: AshleyNational Forest ... year in review.**
 
2010 | 2011| 2013 | 2014| 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.175:
Item Number:0084-A-19 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000900082
 
May 31, 2018
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARIANNE ARCHAMBO, *

* No. 12

- 291V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: April 29 , 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (flu) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * anaphylactic

- type reaction, chronic

* pulmonary disorders, debilitating

Respondent. * musculoskeletal injuries

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dennis Woody

, Woody & Falkenbach, Media, PA

, for Petitioner;

Justine E. Daigneault , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On April 26, 2013

, respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for

compensation filed by Marianne Archambo on May 7, 2012 . In her petition, petitioner alleged

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine , which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”),

42 C .F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received on November 1 6, 2010, caused her to suffer from

an anaphylactic

- type reaction, chronic pulmonary disorders, and debilitating musculoskeletal

injuries

. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects o f her injuries for

more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a

civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner ’s anaphylac tic

- type reaction,

chronic pulmonary disorders, debilitating musculoskeletal injuries, or any other injury or her

current condition

.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A.

The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in

awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002),

requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Damages awar ded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 60 ,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,

Marianne Archambo

. T his amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is

directed to enter judgment in cas e 12

- 291V according to this decision and the attached

stipulation. 2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Jay All , at (202) 357

- 6 353

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each par ty filing

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      125
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                      2,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,450
<PP&E>                                          41,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,633
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         53
<COMMON>                                           107
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,539
<SALES>                                            253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   281
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,120<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,641)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,641)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,641)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES are for R&D incurred in developing product for market
EPS-PRIMARY reflects a reverse two for three stock split and the proforma
restatement of outstanding preferred shares associated with the company's
initial public offering on July 30, 1999.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 1.304-6 Amount constituting a dividend. [Reserved]
Exhibit 31.02



CERTIFICATION



I, Dennis E. Bunday, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Williams Controls Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 officer 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:



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 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 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 the 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.





|Date: August 10, 2006 | /s/ DENNIS E. BUNDAY

Dennis E. Bunday

Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7340 Fibrinogen determination system. ( a ) *Identification.* A fibrinogen determination system is a device that consists of the instruments, reagents, standards, and controls used to determine the fibrinogen levels in disseminated intravascular coagulation (nonlocalized clotting within the blood vessels) and primary fibrinolysis (the dissolution of fibrin in a blood clot).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). A control or fibrinogen standard intended for use with a fibrinogen determination system is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9.
[45 FR 60615, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71799, Dec. 30, 2019]
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 20, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0148. DANIEL ERIC COBBLE v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On September 04, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than September 13, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 20, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.