alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994             DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           3,104                   3,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,826                   1,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,138                  13,138
<PP&E>                                           8,153                   8,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,138                  13,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,616                  15,616
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<COMMON>                                           465                     465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,559)                (18,559)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (2,478)                 (2,478)
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   198                     895
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,729                  12,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,806                   3,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                     467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,337)                (15,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,337)                (15,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,337)                (15,811)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)                   (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)                   (.35)
        

</TABLE>
#### Diana Jean-Pierre, Respondent, v Touro College et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[804 NYS2d 253]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Touro College appeals, and the defendant Arco Management Corp. separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated November 22, 2004, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on a soapy cleaning solution on the stairs of a building partially occupied by the defendant Touro College (hereinafter Touro) and managed by the defendant Arco Management Corp. (hereinafter Arco). The Supreme Court denied those branches of Touro’s motion and Arco’s separate motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. We affirm.

In support of their respective motions, neither Touro nor Arco made a prima facie demonstration that no dangerous or defective condition existed on the stairs or that, if it did, they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition *(see Marino v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.,*21 AD3d 531 [2005]). Thus, summary judgment was properly denied. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.
"O'Brien, Colin" 

<cobrien@nrdc.org>

11/08/2010 11:16 PM

To

LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith 

Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Group 

A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc "Walke, John" <jwalke@nrdc.org>, "Kar, Avinash" 

<akar@nrdc.org>, "Davis, Emily" <edavis@nrdc.org>

bcc

Subject Petition for Reconsideration of Cement Kiln NESHAP

Please find attached a petition submitted on behalf of the Natural Resources 

Defense Council requesting that EPA reconsider its rulemaking titled: 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants.” 75 Fed. Reg. 54970 (Sept. 9, 2010). 

The objection raised in this petition concerns EPA’s promulgation of an 

affirmative defense of malfunction. The defense was first introduced in the 

final rule and, in finalizing it, EPA has invented an unlawful defense that 

does not exist in the Clean Air Act.

Respectfully submitted,

Colin O’Brien

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Ph: (202) 289-6868

cobrien@nrdc.org
Exhibit 10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL LEASE 
 This Fourth
Amendment to Commercial Lease (the “Amendment”) is made as of April 15, 2012, by and between Canvasback Real Estate and Investments, LLC (“Lessor”) and Luna Innovations Incorporated (“Lessee”). 

WITNESSETH 
 WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into that certain Commercial Lease dated as of March 19, 2007 for THE premises located at 706 Forrest Street, Suite 1, Charlottesville, Virginia
22903, as amended by an Amendment to Commercial Lease dated March 18, 2008, and a Second Amendment to Commercial Lease dated October 7, 2009 and a third amendment to the Commercial Lease dated June 21, 2010 (altogether, the
Lease”) 
 WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee have agreed to amend the Lease as set forth herein below 

Now, therefore, in consideration of the payment of rent and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Paragraph 4 of the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
win the following: 
 4. Term 
 The Lease shall be for a term of one hundred and four (104) months beginning on the first day of May, 2007 and ending at 5:00 p.m., on the 31st day of December 2015. Lessee shall have the option to
extend the lease for five (5) years at the same terms and conditions, with an annual percentage rate increase of 4%, provided that Lessee must notify Lessor 180 days in advance of the expiration of the term as to its desire to renew.

 2. Paragraph 5 of the Lease is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

5. Rent 
  

									
	Period	  	Monthly Rent	 	  	Annual rent	 
	 05-1-2007 through 12-31-2007
	  	$	15,000.00	  	  	$	120,000.00	  
	 01-1-08 through 12-31-08
	  	$	15,000.00	  	  	$	180,000,00	  
	 01-1-09 through 12-31-09
	  	$	16,200.00	  	  	$	194,400.00	  
	 01-01-10 through 12-31-10
	  	$	16,200.00	  	  	$	194,400.00	  
	 01-01-11 through 12-31-11
	  	$	16,200.00	  	  	$	194,400.00	  
	 01-1-12 through 12-31-12
	  	$	16,200.00	  	  	$	194,400.00	  
	 01-1-13 through 12-31-15
	  	$	17,500.00	  	  	$	210,000.00	  








 3. Paragraph 14 of the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“14. Starting January 1, 2013, the fee for electric and water/sewer utilities for the premises is included in the base rent at
the rate of $1,300.00 per month. Prior to that date, Lessor shall invoice Lessee separately for that monthly fee. Lessee shall pay for gas, telephone, data lines, security systems, including removal of any waste materials, which are hazardous in
nature, all pallets, excessive packaging material, and janitorial services upon execution of the lease (5-1-2007).” 
 4.
Paragraph 30G of the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety. 
 5. Except as modified herein, the Lease remains unchanged and
in full force and effect This Fourth Amendment may be executed in counterparts, and facsimile signatures shall be deemed originals. 
  

			
	CANVASBACK REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENTS, LLC
		
		 	




	Its:	 	
	
	LUNA INNOVATIONS INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Scott A. Graeff

	
	Scott A. Graeff
	Its: CCO and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6042
JAMES F. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; EDWARD CARTWIGHT, Unit Manager, FCI Estill; HENRY LUSK, Culinary Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-2881-0) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James F. Johnson appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action after he failed to comply with an order of the magistrate judge, requiring service of defendants in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) and answer special interrogatories by the court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Johnson v. Ashcroft , No. CA-02-2881-0 (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 50.3 General definitions and use of terms. As used in the regulations in this part: ( a ) The term *Act* means “An Act to create the California Debris Commission and regulate hydraulic mining in the State of California” approved March 1, 1893, as amended, 27 Stat. 507; 34 Stat. 1001; 48 Stat. 1118; 52 Stat. 1040; 61 Stat. 501; 33 U.S.C. 661-687.
( b ) The term *person* means an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, company, or corporation.
( c ) The term *Secretary* means the Secretary of the Treasury.
( d ) The term *Commissioner* means the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
( e ) The term *district director* means the district director of internal revenue.
( f ) The terms *hydraulic mining* and *mining by the hydraulic process* shall have the meaning and application given said terms in the State of California.
( g ) The term *taxable year* means the twelve-month period ending on August 31 of each year for which the tax imposed by the Act is payable.
#### Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v Old Republic Commercial General Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[803 NYS2d 503]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered January 7, 2005. The judgment, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, in a declaratory judgment action.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 [1990]). Present—Green, J.P, Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
First Department,

November, 2005

(November 1, 2005)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Hall, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 691]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered March 26, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The evidence establishes that the police had reasonable suspicion justifying their seizure of defendant, who met a detailed description of a man carrying a gun. The information the police relied on came from a source that was not anonymous, but rather had identifying characteristics that rendered it reliable, including a partial name and callback number *(see People v Herold,*282 AD2d 1, 5-6 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 682 [2001]; *compare Florida v J.L.,*529 US 266 [2000]). Furthermore, this information was corroborated by defendant’s conduct, which was suggestive of criminality. When the officer confronted defendant in a store, defendant turned toward the officer while moving his hand toward his waistband *(see People v Benjamin,*51 NY2d 267, 270-271 [1980]; *People v Jenkins,*292 AD2d 188 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 711 [2002]). Accordingly, the officer lawfully grabbed defendant’s hand as a self-protective measure, *152and, in doing so, observed a knife in defendant’s waistband. This observation led to the lawful recovery of the knife and other contraband. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-0AR-2005-NM-0007; FRL - _ 

### Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Transportation Conformity Requirementfor Bernalillo County AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). 

### ACTION: Proposedrule. 

### SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revisionto the New Mexico State ImplementationPlan (SIP) at New Mexico Administrative Code 20.11.3, concerning transportation conformity rules for Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The plan revision is intended to ensure consistency with amendments to the federal Transportation Conformity Rule. These plan revisions meet statutory and regulatory requirements, and are consistentwith EPA's guidance. 

### DATES: Written comments should be received on or before 

### [Insertdate 30 

### days from date ofpublication in the Federal Register].

### 2 

### ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct final rule, which is located in the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register, for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. 

### FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-8542; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

### SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This documentproposes to take action on SIP revisions submittedby the Governor ofNew Mexico on behalfofthe Albuquerque Environmental Health Department. We have published a directfinal rule approving the State's SIP revisions in the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. Ifwe receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. Ifwe receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based upon this proposed rule.We do not intendto institute a second commentperiod on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document. 

### 3

Lawrence E. 

### Starfield, r Dated: Acting Regional Administrator, Region 

### 6.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.73 Evidence. ( a ) *In general.* The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in hearings or proceedings conducted under this part. The Administrative Law Judge may, however, exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious,
( b ) *Depositions.* The deposition of any witness taken pursuant to § 10.71 may be admitted into evidence in any proceeding instituted under § 10.60.
( c ) *Requests for admission.* Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission under § 10.71 is conclusively established unless the Administrative Law Judge on motion permits withdrawal or modification of the admission. Any admission made by a party is for the purposes of the pending action only and is not an admission by a party for any other purpose, nor may it be used against a party in any other proceeding.
( d ) *Proof of documents.* Official documents, records, and papers of the Internal Revenue Service and the Office of Professional Responsibility are admissible in evidence without the production of an officer or employee to authenticate them. Any documents, records, and papers may be evidenced by a copy attested to or identified by an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service or the Treasury Department, as the case may be.
( e ) *Withdrawal of exhibits.* If any document, record, or other paper is introduced in evidence as an exhibit, the Administrative Law Judge may authorize the withdrawal of the exhibit subject to any conditions that he or she deems proper.
( f ) *Objections.* Objections to evidence are to be made in short form, stating the grounds for the objection. Except as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, argument on objections will not be recorded or transcribed. Rulings on objections are to be a part of the record, but no exception to a ruling is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.
( g ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable on September 26, 2007.
[T.D. 9011, 67 FR 48765, July 26, 2002. Redesignated and amended by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54552, 54554, Sept. 26, 2007]
#### § 44.4422-1 Doing business in violation of Federal or State law.

Payment of any special tax within the scope of the regulations in this part in nowise authorizes the carrying on of any business in violation of a law of the United States or the law of any State. The special tax stamp is not a license or permit and affords no protection from prosecution for violation of any Federal or State law. See also section 4906.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-3176EM

_____________

United Fire & Casualty Company, an *

Iowa Corporation; First Missouri *

National Bank, a Missouri Corporation, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Allstate Insurance Company, an * [UNPUBLISHED]

Illinois Corporation, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 11, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999 

_____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

United Fire & Casualty Company and First Missouri National Bank appeal the

district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in their action contesting the

cancellation of a policy of insurance issued by Allstate Insurance Company. We

review a grant of summary judgment under a well-established standard. Because this

is a diversity action, we review de novo questions of state law. Having considered

the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied

the controlling state law and the record supports the district court's ruling. We also
-2-

conclude a comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack precedential

value. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further

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

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-  Home 
-  Regulations & Policies 
-  Advisory Circulars (ACs) 

# In This Section

                      -  Advisory Circulars (ACs) 
                      -  Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 
                      -  FAA Regulations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB) 
                      -  Forms 
                      -  Handbooks & Manuals                          -  Overview 
                        -  Aircraft 
                        -  Aviation 
                        -  Examiners & Inspectors 
                      -  Orders & Notices 
                      -  Pilot Records Database 
                      -  Policy & Guidance                          -  Overview 
                        -  Environmental Policy & Guidance 
                      -  Rulemaking                          -  Overview 
                        -  Committees and Documents 
                        -  Notice of Public Meetings 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemaking Documents 

# Airworthiness Directives

Airworthiness Directives (ADs) are legally enforceable regulations issued by the FAA in accordance with 14 CFR part 39 to correct an unsafe condition in a product. Part 39 defines a product as an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance.

### Get notified of new ADs

Sign up for email delivery of new ADs and Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIBs), based on your aircraft type and make.

## Types of ADs

                  - Emergency Airworthiness Directives (EAD)                      - View PDF Guide 
                  - Airworthiness Directives (AD Rules)                      - View PDF Guide 
                  - AD Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (AD NPRMs)                      - View PDF Guide 
                  - AD Biweekly                      - View PDF Guide
[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:****Wetmore bridle trails**
 
2009 | 2011| 2013 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.8:C 99/WETMORE-RIDING/
Item Number:0651-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000924273
 
January 3, 2018
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") of Community National
Bancorporation (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned officers of the of the
Registrant hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Registrant.

Date:  November 15, 2004         By: /s/Theron G. Reed
                                     -----------------------------
                                     Theron G. Reed
                                     President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                     Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1010.305 [Reserved]