alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1 -- CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.


I, Alex Genin, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
First  Capital  International,  Inc.  hereby  certify  that  First  Capital
International, Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10QSB and the financial statements
contained therein fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15  U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that
information  contained  in  the  periodic report on Form 10QSB and the financial
statements  contained  therein  fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial  condition  and  results  of  the  operations  of  First  Capital
International,  Inc.


Date: November 14, 2005          /s/ Alex Genin
                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and 

Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors 

so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 15-BG-925

IN RE: EARL A. SMITH,

Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 392331 BDN: 180-15

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Newman and Ferren, 

Senior Judges. 

ORDER

(FILED - November 5, 2015)

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland 

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney 

Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 116 A.3d 977 (Md. 2015), this court’s 

August 25, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal 

discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding 

reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a 

response to this court’s order to show cause or an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar 

R. XI, §14 (g), it is

ORDERED that Earl A. Smith is hereby disbarred from the practice of law 

in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re 

Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical 

reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not 

participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s 

period of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit 

that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). 

PER CURIAM
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 10/02 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013

-0602 **SUBJECT:** AWEA’s Colorado Wind Forum held on 10/01 /2014

**SUMMARY :**  Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator, and Laura Farris , EPA R egion 8 Climate Change Coordinator, spoke about the Clean Power Plan at the C olorado Wind Forum held by the American Wind Energy Association on October 1, 2014. Mr. McGrath was on a panel in the morning session, and Ms. Farris was a table topic leader during the lunch hour. The Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014.

**ATTENDEES:**

**EPA Region 8**  Shaun McGrath Laura Farris

**E xternal Stakeholders**  Forum Organizer: Larry Flowers Other Panelists Bill Ritter Center for the New Energy Economy/C olorado State U

. Susan Reilly RES Chris Brown Vestas Mike Bowman 25x'25 Shaun McG rath EPA Region 8 Jon Golden

- duBois W estern Resource Advocated Other Table Topic Leaders Mike Schmidt MDA Turbines Shawn Lamb Danish W ind Power Academy Susan Innis Xcel Energy Ron Lehr America’s Power Plan Michael Milligan NREL Charles Newcomb Endurance Windpower Michael Kostrzewa Colo rado State University John Covert Working Landscapes Dan Fesenmeyer G eneral Electric Sandy Butterfield Boulder Wind Power Stacy Telinghausen Western Resource Advocates Kent Singer Colorado Rural Electric Association Sarah Propst Interwest Energy Alliance Lisa Hickey Colorado L awyers Steve Bla ck Bingham McCutchen LLP Brian Smith NREL Anna Giovenetti RES

-Americas Jon Chase VestasBrad Haight Compass Energies

Mark Jacobson NREL Mark Stacy I berdrola R enewables Baird, Mick I nvenergy LLC Pam Kiely PK Strategies LLC Tom Darin AWEA
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 53 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 25 23 -VMC- TBM CRYSTAL BLAKE, in di vi du al ly, an d o n b eh al f of all ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el lant , ve rs us SHERIFF OF POLK COUNTY, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 9, 2 01 0) Befo re BLACK, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Afte r rev ie w of the bri efs an d t he reco rd , th e Co urt af firm s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng th e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s the pl ai nt iff’s com pl ai nt . AFFIRMED.

2
October 20, 2009 

Dear Owner/Resident: 

A Lead Based Paint (LBP) assessment was recently performed on your property by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site 

investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of 

lead based paint is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint 

conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc.) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the 

yard above acceptable levels. 

As requested, enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3128 FONTENELLE BD along 

with a LBP Fact Sheet. The EPA is currently developing paint stabilization eligibility criteria 

and at this time can not identify which homes will ultimately be eligible for EPA-funded paint 

stabilization. At present, paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the 

most severe LPB problems, particularly where children under the age of 7 reside. The EPA 

stresses the importance of maintaining painted surfaces where any amount of LBP is present. 

The LBP Fact Sheet provides information pertaining to the EPA’s Exterior LBP Response 

Program. Once the eligibility criterion is finalized (and if your property qualifies) a 

representative from EPA or the Omaha Lead Hazard Control Program (LHCP) will contact you 

to arrange for paint stabilization at your property. 

Exposure to lead contamination can adversely affect the development and behavior of 

young children. If you have children less than seven years of age living in your home, we 

strongly recommend that you contact your doctor or the Douglas County Health Department at 

(402) 444-7825 and arrange to have their blood tested. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center 

at (402) 731-3045. 

Sincerely, 

Steve M Langum 

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 6601 College Blvd. Overland Park, KS 66211 USA Telephone: 913-458-2900 
Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 1 IIIIII IIIII IIIII11111111111111Il1 85 028 

LEGEND: H - N - P - 01 - 85028 Samples Analyzed 

LBVID Number .Af. 

XRF Unit: a753 Book: h7 

Date: 4 -bZ-oq Time: JO 36 

Sample Number Lead Loading StructurelFeature Substrate Color Deteriorated 

Wlndow, siding, porch, etc ) (Wood,concrete, etc.) area 
IIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIl1 8.5028 


Omaha Lead 3ite North WOW 


Address: 3128 FONT- Site ~ketc$ 


LBP Assessment 

Phon - 1-1
 I I I 


Plan View - lndicate number of stories and perimeter dimensions of structure 

Indicate reaions .- of deterioration and describe 

(Deterioration could include surfaces that are worn due to friction, checking, cracking and flalking, aligatoring , blistering andlor peeling) pw ......................... .f!05,,, .-,A. ....... ..... 

Y LBP-1.1 Printed: 04-hg49
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11496]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that TD Javelin Capital Fund, LP (``TD 
Javelin''), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a 
Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as 
amended (``the Act''), TD Javelin Capital Fund II, LP (``TD Javelin 
II''), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a 
Federal Licensee under the Act, and TD Lighthouse Capital Fund, LP 
(``TD Lighthouse'', and together with TD Javelin and TD Javelin II, the 
``Funds''), 303 Detroit Street, Suite 301, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, 
an applicant for a Federal license under the Act, in connection with 
the financing of a small concern, are seeking an exemption under 
section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute 
Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') 
rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). The Funds propose to 
provide equity financing to t-Breeders, Inc. (``t-Breeders''), One 
Innovation Drive, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605. The financing is 
contemplated for product development and working capital.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because TD Javelin, an Associate of the Funds, 
currently owns greater than 10 percent of t-Breeders and therefore t-
Breeders is considered an Associate of each of the Funds as defined in 
Sec. 107.50 of the regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: April 26, 2000.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 00-11496 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 21, 2022

No. 04-22-00417-CV

Rigoberto SANCHEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

COTT BEVERAGES, INC.,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI02505

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on or before December 15, 2022. No further extensions will be 

granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of October, 2022.

_________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

CLEARVALUE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

AND

RICHARD ALAN HAASE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC., POLYCHEMIE, 

INC., SNF, INC., POLYDYNE, INC., AND SNF 

HOLDING COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

__________________________ 

2012-1595 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in case no. 06-CV-0197, Chief 

Judge Leonard Davis. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Case: 12-1595 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2012
CLEARVALUE, INC. V. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS, INC. 2

Richard Alan Haase moves for a 60-day extension of 

time, until February 13, 2013, to file his brief. Haase states 

that the appellees oppose. 

 Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s27 

Case: 12-1595 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2012
#### BAKER v APPEMAN

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

Decided September 30, 1929

David Kammer, Esq., Cleveland, for Baker.

Messrs. Lamb, Vaughn & Krauss, Cleveland, for Appeman.

SULLIVAN, J.

Speaking jqpon the latter point first, we do not think that the court committed any error for the nature of the injuries, as appears by the record, was necessarily and inevitabily cognizant to the plaintiff. If the injury in a personal injury case is the breaking of a bone, the dislocation of a joint, the loss of a leg or eye, or any other injury of a similar nature, there is no question but that upon the testimony of the person injured a recovery can be had without resorting to expert testimony. This is self-evident for the reason that the knowledge is actually in the possession of the person injured, and in the instant case it would be only upon a more subtle aspect of the case that an expert would *604be necessary. We, therefore, do not think that the court .committed error in this respect.

Coming to the question as to whether the verdict is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence, an examination of the record does not bring us to that conclusion in -this case, because there is nothing, but a conflict in the testimony ,and, as has often been said in our opinions, a reversal can only be had as a matter of law and this reversal depends upon some aspect of the record which shows that there has been such a judgment as shocks the senses or results in a judgment which is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. This rule is laid down, and we have quoted it often, and we quote it again in the case of Painesville Utopia Theater Co. vs. Lautermilch, 118 OS. 167.

Holding these ylews, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
#### Alfred Santini & Co., Inc., Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 678]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered July 21, 1998, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing *120the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint.

A claim for payment from the Board of Education must be preceded by a notice of claim served on the Board within three months of its accrual (Education Law § 3813 [1]; *Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ.,*60 NY2d 539, 547-548), a condition precedent to the maintenance of the action *(Castagna & Son v Board of Educ.,*151 AD2d 392), and untimeliness presents a fatal defect *(Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., supra).*Accrual generally equates with the date upon which the damages are ascertainable *(Castagna & Son v Board of Educ., supra).*For recovery of moneys due and owing out of a contract, the claim accrues at the time payment is denied, a rejection that may be constructively accomplished when, *inter alia,*the putative debtor declines to timely respond to the claimant’s demand letter *(Dodge, Chamberlin, Luzine, Weber Architects v Dutchess County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*258 AD2d 434, *lv denied*93 NY2d 809). Since plaintiff was made aware by October 1996 that defendant would refuse to pay the claim, as was confirmed by correspondence in November 1996, and further confirmed by defendant’s failure to respond within 10 days to plaintiffs demand for payment, as per plaintiffs November 7, 1996 demand letter, plaintiffs March 1997 notice of claim was untimely. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

192)11-1-24 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:00 AM Sheet 192 of 276 
\ $ 

P.2 

II-I-24 

Note: Table from Generic Guidelines for the Life Extension of Fossil Fuel Power Plant, 

EPRI CS-4778. 

XS5&$ 

1:^LT7L\ ^JH 

* ^' 
P.3 

J <*• 

Table E-8 

RECOMMENDATION TOTALS BY 

WORK PACKAGE PORT WASHINGTON 

Number of 

Work Package Recommendations 

Steam Generator 133 

Steam Generator Auxiliaries and Ash Collection 145 

Turbine Generator and Auxiliaries 86 

Plant Support Mechanical Systems 46 

Water Treatment 31 

Electrical Auxiliary Power Distribution 39 

Instrumentation and Controls 41 

Critical Piping 70 

Structures and Site Improvements (Common for 21 

the Plant) 

From (E-19) 

j-l'jj JUN l 2 1991 . 

E-35
§ 91.1109 Aircraft maintenance: Inspection program. Each program manager must establish an aircraft inspection program for each make and model program aircraft and ensure each aircraft is inspected in accordance with that inspection program. ( a ) The inspection program must be in writing and include at least the following information: ( 1 ) Instructions and procedures for the conduct of inspections for the particular make and model aircraft, including necessary tests and checks. The instructions and procedures must set forth in detail the parts and areas of the airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, and appliances, including survival and emergency equipment required to be inspected.
( 2 ) A schedule for performing the inspections that must be accomplished under the inspection program expressed in terms of the time in service, calendar time, number of system operations, or any combination thereof.
( 3 ) The name and address of the person responsible for scheduling the inspections required by the inspection program. A copy of the inspection program must be made available to the person performing inspections on the aircraft and, upon request, to the Administrator.
( b ) Each person desiring to establish or change an approved inspection program under this section must submit the inspection program for approval to the Flight Standards office that issued the program manager's management specifications. The inspection program must be derived from one of the following programs: ( 1 ) An inspection program currently recommended by the manufacturer of the aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and survival and emergency equipment;
( 2 ) An inspection program that is part of a continuous airworthiness maintenance program currently in use by a person holding an air carrier or operating certificate issued under part 119 of this chapter and operating that make and model aircraft under part 121 or 135 of this chapter;
( 3 ) An aircraft inspection program approved under § 135.419 of this chapter and currently in use under part 135 of this chapter by a person holding a certificate issued under part 119 of this chapter; or
( 4 ) An airplane inspection program approved under § 125.247 of this chapter and currently in use under part 125 of this chapter.
( 5 ) An inspection program that is part of the program manager's continuous airworthiness maintenance program under §§ 91.1411 through 91.1443.
( c ) The Administrator may require revision of the inspection program approved under this section in accordance with the provisions of § 91.415.
[Docket No. FAA-2001-10047, 68 FR 54561, Sept. 17, 2003, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 91-350, 83 FR 9171, Mar. 5, 2018]
#### Kathleen K. Foster, Appellant, v Brian T. Clifford, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 204]

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The proponent of a motion for summary judgment has the burden to "make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853). Defendant failed to establish that it did not violate Hornell City Code § 267-5 or that, even if it did violate that provision, such violation was not a cause of the accident. Thus, defendant failed to meet its burden. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-111368, 333-110311, 333-110310, and 333-11130 on Forms S-8of our reports dated February 25, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Overnite Corporation and subsidiaries and management’s report of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Overnite Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche 

 

Richmond, Virginia 

February 25, 2005
§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
( b ) *Direction of turns.* When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace— ( 1 ) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
( 2 ) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
( c ) *Flap settings.* Except when necessary for training or certification, the pilot in command of a civil turbojet-powered aircraft must use, as a final flap setting, the minimum certificated landing flap setting set forth in the approved performance information in the Airplane Flight Manual for the applicable conditions. However, each pilot in command has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the pilot's airplane, and may use a different flap setting for that airplane if the pilot determines that it is necessary in the interest of safety.
( d ) *Communications with control towers.* Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with § 91.185.
[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59 FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994; Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]
Docket No: FAA-2015-3984 Dir ID: 2015-NM-033-AD