alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C . 20460 

1W`NR 3 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

Mr. James S . Pew 

Earthj ustice 

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C . 20036 

Dear Mr. Pew: 

Thank you for your letters of March 9, 2010 and March 17, 2010, to U.S . Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, submitted on behalf of community 

organizations, national environmental and public health groups, regarding EPA's upcoming 

proposed rule on identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste. I also 

appreciated hearing your concerns when we met on March 10, 2010, and look forward to 

continuing our dialogue. 

As you know, the rulemaking for identification of non-hazardous secondary materials 

that are solid waste will be proposed by April 15, 2010, the same schedule as the court-ordered 

schedule for the Clean Air Act Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration rule and the 

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heater rule . In the non-hazardous 

secondary materials proposal, on-site burning is one of several combustion scenarios that will be 

addressed. We will ensure that your letters are entered into the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQRCRA-2008-0329) for consideration as the rule is developed. 

Again, thank you for your letters . If you have further questions, please contact me or you 

may contact Jim Berlow, in EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, at (703) 308-

8414 or at berlow.jim@epa.gov. 

Mathy St~islaus 

Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) 0 http ://www .epa .gov 

Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
# Comments on: 23-1435: UTTO INC. v. METROTECH CORP. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
TRI-ISTHMUS GROUP, INC. 2007 FORM 10-KT/A **Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Transition Report on Form 10-K of Tri-Isthmus Group, Inc. (the “registrant”)for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “report”), I, David Hirschhorn, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the registrant.Date: February 11, 2008       By:  /s/ David Hirschhorn   David Hirschhorn   Chief Executive Officer   This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the registrantfor purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrantspecifically incorporates it by reference.
EXHIBIT '

Case 1:22-cv-24270-DPG Document 56-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-24270-DPG Document 56-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00692- CV

David Z. Her nand ez, A ppellan t

v. Elm R idge Apartm ents, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 15- 0080 88, H ONO RAB LE TO DD T. WO NG, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On the parties’ joint m o t i o n , t h i s cause has been abate d in aid of settlement neg otiations. The pa

rties have now filed a joint ag ree d motion advising this Court that they have 1
succe eded in settling the underly ing dispute and reque sting that we “dismiss this appea l pursuant to their settlement ag ree ment” and order “that costs be assessed ag ainst the party incurring the same.” We gr ant the motion, dismi ss the appea l, and orde r that ea ch par ty bear its own costs. 2 3

See Hernande

z v. Elm Ridge Apts. , No. 03-15-00692- CV, 2016 WL 1039007 1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 11, 2016, no pet. h.) ( mem. op.). See Tex. R. App. P . 42 .1(a) (2)( A). 2 See id. R. 42.1(d). 3__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Bour land Dismissed on J oint Moti on Filed: Apr il 6, 2016

2
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 35352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity 
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending May 25, 2013. The following 
Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and 
Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly 
Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations 
(See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT- OST-2013-0109.
    Date Filed: May 21, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: June 11, 2013.
    Description: Application of AirTanker Services Limited requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to engage in: (a) 
Foreign charter air transportation of persons and property from any 
point or points behind any Member State of the European Union via any 
point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any 
point or points in the United States and beyond; (b) foreign charter 
air transportation of persons and property between any point or points 
in the United States and any point or points in any member of the 
European Common Aviation Area; (c) other charters pursuant to the prior 
approval requirements set forth in Part 212 of the Department's 
Economic Regulations; and (d) transportation authorized by any 
additional route rights made available to European Community carries in 
the future.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-13961 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### In the Matter of William Ganci, Appellant, v Jean Tuthill et al., Respondents.

[628 NYS2d 511]

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 71, *inter alia,*to recover damages for the alleged wrongful retention of money seized by the police, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 21, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The gravamen of this action is the alleged wrongful retention of money after the disposition of a criminal action in the course of which money was seized. As such, a timely notice of claim was required to be filed *(see, Boyle v Kelley,*42 NY2d 88; *Matter of Oakley v Police Prop. Clerk of Nassau County,*75 AD2d 816; *Matter of Abramowitz v Guido,*61 AD2d 1045; County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-e). Since no such notice of claim was filed, the action was properly dismissed *(see, Matter of Ganci v Tuthill,*216 AD2d 390 [decided herewith]; *Boyle v Kelley, supra; Matter of Oakley v Police Prop. Clerk of Nassau County, supra; Matter of Abramowitz v Guido, supra).*Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
# Comments on: 22-1037: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Precedential
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2000 P
EXHIBIT 2.10





THIRD
AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT





This THIRD AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT (Amendment),
effective as of this 19th day of December, 2001, by and between BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation with offices at 1627 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015 (the Seller), and GENSTAR THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation with offices at 10865 Altman Row, San Diego, California, 92121 (Buyer).





RECITALS





WHEREAS, the Buyer and the Seller have entered into that Certain Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 28, 1998, as amended by the
Amendments to Asset Purchase Agreement dated May 27, 1998 and July 20, 2001 (collectively, the Agreement); and





WHEREAS, the Buyer and the Seller desire to amend the Agreement to reflect certain changes to terms of the Series B Preferred Stock of Buyer, upon and subject to the terms and conditions of this Amendment; and





WHEREAS, any capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall bear the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.





NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, the parties agree as follows:





As of the date hereof, the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the Certificate of Designation for the Series B Preferred Stock of Buyer as contained
in Exhibit A of the Agreement with the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1.





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





| | 
| | 

| | 
| | 

SELLER: BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATIONBy:Title:

President, Venture ManagementVictor W. Schmitt








| | 
| | 

BUYER: GENSTAR THERAPEUTICS CORPORATIONBy:Title:

President & CEORobert E. Sobol









---




EXHIBIT 1





[Amendment to Certificate of Designation for Series B Preferred Stock]
#### § 102-34.300 How do we dispose of a domestic fleet motor vehicle?

After meeting the replacement standards under subpart E of this part, you may dispose of a Government-owned domestic fleet motor vehicle. Detailed instructions for the transfer of an excess motor vehicle to another Federal agency can be found in part 102-36 of this subchapter B, information for the donation of surplus of motor vehicles can be found in part 102-37 of this subchapter B, information for the sale of motor vehicles can be found in part 102-38 of this subchapter B, and information on exchange/sale authority can be found in part 102-39 of this subchapter B.
#### § 109-1.103 FPMR/FMR temporary regulations.
### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI<jli'E,li,Fl! FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASIDNGTON, DC 

# c

**~'**



### In the Matter of: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### FAA DOCKET No. FAA-2015-0205 James Juaquin Jordan, Respondent ) ) 

### __________________________) FAA Case No.2014SW700104 (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. 2015-0205 HON. J.E. Sullivan

AMENDED JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FORTERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS Pursuant to the Court's Request on October 14, 2015, the parties are filing a Joint Notice ofSettlement and Request for Termination ofthe Proceedings. The parties have reached settlement inthe current matter and request that the Court terminate the proceedings, with prejudice. Submittedthis 24th day ofNovember, 2015. Respectfully submitted, ERIC E. ANDERSON Regional Counsel Southwest Region

Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region I0I0I Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX76177 

# ~==~---- Respondent 130 Cauley Club Ct Duluth, Georgia 30097CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: James Juaquin Jordan, FAA Case No. 2014SW700104 I hereby certify that on December 3, 2015, I have sent via Federal Express an executed original and one copy ofthe Amended JointNotice ofSettlement and Request for Termination of the Proceedings, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430
I further certifY that on this date, I have sent via Federal Express a true copy ofthe Amended JointNotice ofSettlement and Request for Termination ofthe Proceedings, addressed as follows: Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590
Mr. James Juaquin Jordan 130 Cauley Club Ct. Duluth, Georgia 30097

Rebecca A. Holmes, Agency Attorney (817) 222-5064 Dated: December 3, 2015
§ 102-34.335 How do I submit information to the General Services Administration (GSA) for the Federal Fleet Report (FFR)? ( a ) Annually, agencies must submit to GSA the information needed to produce the FFR through the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool (FAST), an Internet-based reporting tool. To find out how to submit motor vehicle data to GSA through FAST, consult the instructions from your agency fleet manager and read the documentation at *http://fastweb.inel.gov/ .*
( b ) Specific reporting categories, by agency, included in the FFR are— ( 1 ) Inventory;
( 2 ) Acquisitions;
( 3 ) Operating costs;
( 4 ) Miles traveled; and
( 5 ) Fuel used.
Note to § 102-34.335 :
The FAST system is also used by agency Fleet Managers to provide the Department of Energy with information required by the Energy Policy Act and related Executive Orders. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires agency Fleet Managers and budget officers to submit annual agency motor vehicle budgeting information to OMB through FAST (see OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 21, 2016

d1214

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2016

154131 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154131

COA: 332684

Oakland CC: 2015-253719-FC

KAREY LEE ROSE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a supplement is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         970,218
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         419,583
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,148,619
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  5,118,910
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       5,118,910
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     75,870,779
<ALLOWANCE>                                    553,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,370,956
<DEPOSITS>                                  70,327,381
<SHORT-TERM>                                   800,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,720,735
<LONG-TERM>                                  9,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,334,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,122,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              92,370,956
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,152,735
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              885,395
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,038,130
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,839,476
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,443,638
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,354,492
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  240,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               5,015
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,549,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,078,553
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,078,553
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   677,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.02
<LOANS-NON>                                    462,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                776,400
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               397,012
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   91,936
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,437
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              553,513
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           403,513
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        150,000
        

</TABLE>
#### JAMES FORSYTH, Appellant, *v.*DANIEL HARTNETT, Respondent.

*Besw'wtion of right of way in*lease— *action for use and occupation.*

Motion for a new trial on exceptions ordered to be beard in the first instance at tbe General Term, after a nonsuit ordered by tbe court.

Tbe plaintiff was the owner of a lot fronting on tbe Hudson river. He leased it verbally to White & Oo., “ reserving tbe right of ferry-way, and of landing of ferry passengers crossing over tbe lot.” There was no “ particular location as to where tbe passengers should go.” During this lease tbe defendant, running a ferry, landed at certain times on this lot, and on one occasion promised to pay tbe plaintiff for its use. Tbe plaintiff now sues for use and occupation.

Tbe court at General Term said: “ Taking tbe language of tbe plaintiff himself, it cannot be said that any part of tbe lot was excepted from tbe lease to White & Oo. Tbe plaintiff expressly says that there was no particular location. White *&*Oo. were tbe sole lessees of tbe lot. Tbe plaintiff now insists that bis claim is for tbe use and occupation of tbe sbp or landing, and a way to and from tbe same across tbe lot. * * * Rut tbe evidence seems to show that all which tbe plaintiff reserved was a right to use this ferry way; and that not exclusively. * * * If White & Oo. were tbe lessees, and if all which tbe plaintiff bad was tbe right to use tbe ferryway, an action for use and occupation could not be maintained by him. There was no land which tbe defendant occupied.

So, too, in this same view, tbe defendant’s promise to pay was without consideration. Tbe plaintiff parted with nothing, and it does not appear that bis consent to tbe defendant’s landing at this place was of any value. Hnless tbe plaintiff bad tbe exclusive right then, tbe consent to tbe defendant’s landing should have come from White & Oo. in order to give it any validity.”

*George A.*Mosher, for tbe appellant. *Edgar L. Eiorsman,*for tbe respondent.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Rockes and Roardman, JJ.

Motion for new trial denied, and judgment ordered for defendant with costs.
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 3 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 4 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 5 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 6 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 7 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 8 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 9 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 10 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 11 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 12 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 13 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 14 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 15 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 16 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 17 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 18 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 19 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 20 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 21 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 22 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 23 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 24 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 25 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 26 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 27 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 28 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 29 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 30 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 31 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 32 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 33 of 34
Case 1:22-cv-23079-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 34 of 34