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

Navistar Inc. Heavy-Duty Engine 

Recall 

I

n May 2013, Navistar Inc. began recalling approximately 4,400 

trucks that exceed pollution standards for nitrogen oxides, which 

help protect the public from respiratory illnesses such as emphysema 

and bronchitis.  The affected models include 2011, 2012, 2013 and 

2014 model year International trucks equipped with the 2010, 2011 

and 2012 model year Navistar MaxForce 11 liter diesel engine. 

California models are also included in this 50 state recall. 

Navistar was required to recall some of the 2012 model year engines 

because they exceeded a limit established for engines certified under 

an EPA rule that allows manufacturers to produce and sell engines not 

conforming to emission standards upon payment of a nonconformance 

penalty (NCP).  Navistar agreed to recall the remaining engines, 

certified and produced through an emissions averaging, banking, 

and trading (ABT) program, because they exceeded their applicable 

emission standards and contained the same cause of the exceedance as 

the NCP engines.  Navistar developed and tested a revised emissions 

software calibration for the 2012 MY NCP engines so that they meet 

the applicable emission standards.  The same calibration fix will be 

applied to the ABT engines to bring them into compliance with the 

cap established by that program. 

Navistar has mailed notification letters to affected truck owners indicating they should contact a Navistar dealership for servicing. Navistar 

has indicated that the recall will not harm fuel economy. The repairs 

change the software calibration and can be completed in approximately 

30 minutes. However, to ensure mechanic availability and minimize 

waiting, owners are encouraged to contact a dealer to schedule an 

appointment. 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

EPA-420-F-13-038 

June 2013 
Program Announcement

Background 

After failing to meet federal NOx emissions standards in MY 2012 engines, Navistar certified 

their engines under an EPA NCP rule. The NCP rule sets an upper limit on the amount emissions can exceed standards and requires emission testing on production engines to demonstrate 

compliance. Prior to and during the 2012 MY, Navistar certified and produced the same engine 

design through an emissions averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program, which established 

an equivalent cap on emission standard exceedances to the NCP upper limit. Navistar agreed 

that all ABT engines containing the same cause of the exceedance as the NCP engines should 

also be recalled. Therefore, the 2010, 2011, and 2012 MY ABT engines were added to the 

recall. 

For More Information 

For more information, please visit the Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s website at: 

www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm 

2
## NO. 12

- 19

- 00056

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOSHUA SCALES,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Joshua Scales, filed a pro se motion to dismiss this appeal. No decision has

been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the

appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered March 20, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 20 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00056

- CR

JOSHUA SCALES,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0630

- 17)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### §§ 136.43-136.49 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6579

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLTON BASHFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:01-cv-01030-JCC; 1:91-cr-00332-AVB-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton Bashford, Appellant Pro Se. Kondi J. Kleinman, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlton Brashford seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 59(e). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on December 8, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April 

20, 2011, or beyond the sixty day appeal period.*

 *

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

 Because

Brashford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain 

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.03


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


 


This
First Amendment (the “First Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 31
day of August, 2009 (the “First Amendment Effective Date”) and amends the
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of September 29, 2008
(the “Employment Agreement”), by and between NEW FRONTIER MEDIA, INC. (“NFM”)
and GRANT WILLIAMS (“Executive”).  Unless
otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used shall have the meaning
ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


In
consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration,
including Executive’s continued employment with NFM, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Executive and NFM hereby agree as
follows:


 


I.              AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT


 


Section 1
“Term” is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and
replacing the same with the following:


 


“The
Term of this Agreement shall begin as of the First Amendment Effective Date and
shall continue until midnight on August 31, 2012, or such other date as
the Agreement is terminated by either party as hereinafter provided (the “Term”).


 


Section 4(A)(ii)(a) “Covenant
Against Competition” is hereby amended by deleting the following language: “during
the period commencing on the date hereof and ending one (1) year following
the date upon which the Executive shall cease to be  paid any compensation by NFM” and by
replacing the same with “during the period commencing on the date hereof and
ending on the date upon which the Executive’s employment terminates”.


 


II.            GENERAL PROVISIONS


 


All
other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement that have not been
specifically amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.  This First Amendment, together with the
Employment Agreement, contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by
the parties hereto regarding the subject matter hereof.  All prior agreements, promises, negotiations
and representations, either oral or written, relating to the subject matter of
this First Amendment or the Employment Agreement not expressly set forth in
this First Amendment or the Employment Agreement are of no force or
effect.  Any waiver, alteration or
modification of any of the terms of this First Amendment shall be valid only if
made in writing and signed by both parties hereto. This First Amendment may be
executed in up to two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
but together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first
set forth above.


 


	
  NEW
  FRONTIER MEDIA, INC.

  	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:
  

  	
  /s/
  Michael Weiner

  	
   

  	
  By:
  

  	
  /s/
  Grant Williams

  
	
  Name:
  Michael Weiner

  	
   

  	
  Name:
  Grant Williams

  
	
  Title:
  Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Estate of John M. Glen, Deceased. Eleanor Glen, Individually and as Administratrix with the Will Annexed of the Estate of John M. Glen, Deceased, et al., Appellants; John Glen, Respondent.

(Submitted November 16, 1936;

decided November 24, 1936.)

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 272 N. Y. 530.)
§ 29.1581 General. ( a ) *Furnishing information.* A Rotorcraft Flight Manual must be furnished with each rotorcraft, and it must contain the following: ( 1 ) Information required by §§ 29.1583 through 29.1589.
( 2 ) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
( b ) *Approved information.* Each part of the manual listed in §§ 29.1583 through 29.1589 that is appropriate to the rotorcraft, must be furnished, verified, and approved, and must be segregated, indentified, and clearly distinguished from each unapproved part of that manual.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Table of contents.* Each Rotorcraft Flight Manual must include a table of contents if the complexity of the manual indicates a need for it.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Amdt. 29-15, 43 FR 2327, Jan. 16, 1978]
###### Editorial Note on Part 294

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 294.70 Enforcement.

In case of any violation of any of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII , or this part, or any other rule, regulation, or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding under section 46101 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before the Department, or sections 46106 through 46108 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel compliance; or to impose civil penalties under the provisions of section 46301 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII; or in the case of a willful violation, to impose criminal penalties under the provisions of section 46316 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII; or to impose other lawful sanctions, including revocation of registration.

[ER-1257, 46 FR 52591, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995]
EXHIBIT 23.2

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-112729, 333-111991, 333-109925,
333-108422, 333-106252, 333-100583, 333-89985, 333-47074, and 333-36144) on Form S-3 and
(333-100582, 333-87714, 333-83287, 333-66995, 333-56308, 333-34020, 333-35306, and 333-83287) on
Form S-8 of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2002, except for footnotes 3 and 4(b) to the consolidated financial statements in the Current Report on
Form 8-K/A of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. dated December 19, 2002, which are as of October 15, 2002, relating to 24/7 Real Media, Inc. and subsidiaries' consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. dated March 1, 2004.

Our
report dated March 29, 2002, except for footnotes 3 and 4(b) to the consolidated financial statements in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A of 24/7
Real Media, Inc. dated December 19, 2002, which are as of October 15, 2002, contains two explanatory paragraphs. The first explanatory paragraph states that the Company has
suffered recurring losses from operations since inception and has a working capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty. The second explanatory paragraph states that the Company revised the consolidated financial statements
and footnotes to reflect the sale of its IMAKE subsidiary as a discontinued operation in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.

| |  | /s/KPMG LLP
| |  | -----------

New
York, New York
March 1, 2004

---

QuickLinks
---

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 of Las Vegas From Home.com Entertainment Inc., (the "Company") on Form 20F for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We, Jacob H. Kalpakian, the President and C.E.O.of the Company, and Bedo H. Kalpakian, Chairman and C.F.O. of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Jacob H. Kalpakian

Bedo H. Kalpakian





Jacob H.Kalpakian

Bedo H. Kalpakian

President & C.E.O.

Chairman & C.F.O.









May 31, 2006.
#### KING v. FOWLER.

(Decided November 25, 1915.)

Appeal from Blount Circuit Court..

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

No counsel marked for appellant. James Kay, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.
PRD Appendix A: Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Considered in Registration Review Work Planning

Tralkoxydim (121000) - Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals with more than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from one or m

Food (F) / 

Non-food (N) Use Site Formulation Desc A. I. Max App Rate/App Max # Apps / CC A. I. Max App Rate/CC Max # Apps / Year A. I. Max App Rate/Year Minimum Retreatment Interval Minimum Reentry Interval PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo Restrictions DisAllow Geo Restrictions 

F BARLEY EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .24 lb / a NS .2504lb / a NS NS NS 12 hr

G01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) || H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CS

G01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||

Current As Of Date : 01/14/2011

F BARLEY GRANULAR .24 lb / a NS .25lb / a NS NS NS 12 hr

G01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) ||

H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CS

F TRITICALE EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .24 lb / a NS .2504lb / a NS NS NS 12 hr

G01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) || H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CS

F WHEAT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .24 lb / a NS .2504lb / a NS NS NS 12 hr

G01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) || H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CS

F WHEAT GRANULAR .24 lb / a NS .25lb / a NS NS NS 12 hr

G01(30) || G83(45) || H01(60) || H26(30) No Restrictions No Restrictions C46 || CAU || CCB(0) || CDC || CPE || CS

Not Specified

Limitation Code Limitation Description

C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation systemG (01) __ day(s) pregrazing interval.C (SA) Do not apply when wind velocity is _____ mph or greater.C (SV) Do not apply when wind velocity is ___ mph or less.C (WG)G (83) __ day(s) prefeeding interval.

C (CB) __ months rotational/plant back crop restriction.

C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.

C (AU) Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the 

Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

C (DC) Do not apply when drift is likely to occur.C (PE) PPE (Protective Personal Equipment) language is found on the label. Please see issues report to read C (WH) Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of equipment wash waters.

Drift and runoff may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas.

C (WL)

( ) y( ) g

H (01) __ day(s) preharvest interval.H (26) __ day(s) preharvest interval (forage).

Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report
of M Line Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Colin, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:  February
      22, 2010
              /s/
      George ColinBy:  George
      ColinIts:  Chief
      Executive Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
M Line Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by M Line Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
SERVED FEBRUARY 16,2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASfflNGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

F AND F AVIATION INC., 

Respondent. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09SO0012 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0848 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER 

DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

Counsel for the Complainant has advised me that the parties have 

reached a settlement, and the Federal Aviation Administration has 

withdrawn its complaint. 

In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to § 13.215 of the 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice, and the docket is closed. 

The hearing scheduled for March 4, 2010 is cancelled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

L.-i.i i t'l ii!n,-:oruniAlluN 

Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP09SO0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

F and F Aviation Inc., Respondent 

2501 Del Lago Drive 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 

Gabriel I. Peftagaricano, Respondent's Counsel 

PMB 239 

405 Ave. Esmeralda Ste. 102 

Guaynabo, PR 00969 

TEL: 787-287-9024 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1251

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1251 appear at 81 FR 3709, Jan. 22, 2016.

#### §§ 1251.561-1251.569 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.207 Cases to be decided on written submissions. ( a ) Applications under this subpart will be decided on the basis of written submissions unless the DOT decisionmaker, on petition as provided in § 302.208 or on his or her own initiative, determines that an oral presentation or an administrative law judge's decision is required because: ( 1 ) Use of written procedures will prejudice a party;
( 2 ) Material issues of decisional fact cannot adequately be resolved without oral evidentiary hearing procedures; or
( 3 ) Assignment of an application for oral evidentiary hearing procedures or an initial or recommended decision by an administrative law judge is otherwise required by the public interest.
( b ) The standards employed in deciding cases under § 302.210(a)(1) or (5) shall be the same as the standards applied in cases decided under § 302.210(a)(4). These are the standards set forth in the Statute as interpreted and expanded upon under that Statute.
#### § 29.303 Factor of safety.

Unless otherwise provided, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be used. This factor applies to external and inertia loads unless its application to the resulting internal stresses is more conservative.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DERIACE STONE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 154 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.