alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Draft Proposal CB-20 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Minimum Skylight Fenestration Area (CB-20) 

Objective:  Clarify the language pertaining to requiring skylights in roofs covering areas greater than

10,000 ft2

.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C402.3.2 as follows:  

C402.3.2 Minimum skylight fenestration area. In an enclosed space greater than 10,000 square feet in 

floor area directly under a roof with a at least 75% of ceiling area with heights greater than 15 feet, and 

used as an office, lobby, atrium, concourse, corridor, storage space, gymnasium/exercise center, 

convention center, automotive service area, space where manufacturing occurs, non-refrigerated 

warehouse, retail store, distribution/sorting area, transportation depot, or workshop, the total daylight 

zone under skylights shall be not less than half the floor area and shall provide a minimum skylight area 

to daylight zone under skylights of either 

1. Not less than at least 3 percent with a skylight when all skylights have a VT of at least 0.40 when 

tested in accordance with NFRC 202, or 

2. provide a minimum skylight effective aperture of at least 1 percent as determined in accordance 

with Equation 4-1. 

(Equation 4‐1 remains unchanged.)

Exception: Skylights above daylight zones of enclosed spaces are not required in: 

(Exceptions 1‐4 remain unchanged.)

Reason:  By definition skylights are fenestration such that the use of the term fenestration with skylights

is redundant.  The intent is to address ceilings with variable heights and the proposed revision does that

by indicating the requirement applies when more than 75% of ceiling area is above 15 feet.  Some of the

subject spaces referenced are not technically spaces or areas so the language has been enhanced to

convey the intent.  Simplification is achieved by simply removing 1 and 2 and making them part of the

preceding sentence.  While VT is defined, there is no referenced test method.  NFRC 202 provides a
uniform test method by which VT can be objectively determined and should be referenced to enhance

uniformity of application and implementation of and compliance verification with the code.   

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change because the current code

requires daylighting control.  The exceptions are just not as clearly addressed in the current code as it is

in the code change proposal.
#### Reighter *v.*Reighter, Appellant.

*Divorce—Adultery—Evidence—Deductions.*

Where on a libel for divorce for adultery the inferences of guilt are fairly deducible from the testimony, a divorce will be granted, although there is no direct evidence to establish the adultery.

*637Argued Oct. 8, 1914.

Appeal, No. 37, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1911, No. 2,445, for libelant in case of David •Henry Reighter v. Elizabeth H. Reighter. ■

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Henderson, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Libel for divorce on the ground of adultery. Before Audenried, J.

*Error assigned*was the decree awarding divorce.

*Louis Goodfriend,*for appellant.

*J. 0. Eberhard, Jr.,*for appellee.

February 24, 1915:

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The testimony of the co-respondent certainly justifies the inference that the respondent and he were criminally intimate. We would hesitate to found a decree upon his testimony alone, but coupled with the letters which the respondent admits she wrote to him, addressed to him as husband, signed by her- as wife, containing terms of endearment, regret for his absence and indelicate allusions entirely inconsistent with platonic relations, and considering the frequent opportunities they had of companionship and the evident enjoyment they had in each other’s society, leads us to the conclusion that the Master was right in holding that the charge of adultery had been sustained.

The inferences of guilt are fairly deducible from the testimony although there is no direct evidence to establish it: McCune v. McCune, 31 Pa. Superior Ct. 248; Gruninger v. Gruninger, 190 Pa. 633.

In view of the fact that the charge of adultery has been sustained we need not discuss the question as to whether a desertion occurred or not.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of appellant.
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 Biosolar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Lee, Chief
Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




July 23, 2008
            
            /s/
      David LeeDavid
      Lee
              Chief
      Executive Officer and
              Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICKY RICARDO MAHABEER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CR-95-79, CA-97-197-7-F)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Ricardo Mahabeer, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Mahabeer, Nos. CR-95-79; CA-97-197-7-F

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 606.11 Notice.

The Foundation shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the Foundation and make such information available to them in such manner as the Director of the Foundation finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this regulation.
EXHIBIT 99.8



|     |  |                                                                                             |  |                        |  |                                          
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |                                                                                             |  |                        |  |                                          
|     |  | KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants PO Box 10426 777
Dunsmuir Street Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3
Canada |  | Telephone Fax
Internet |  | (604) 691-3000 (604)
691-3031 www.kpmg.ca

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of Westport Innovations Inc.:

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:



| |  |  | our Independent Auditors Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 28, 2012 on the consolidated balance sheets of Westport
Innovations Inc. (the Company) as at December 31, 2011 and March 31, 2011, and the consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), shareholders equity and cash flows for the nine-month period ended
December 31, 2011 and for the years ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 28, 2012 on the Companys internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2011
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

each of which is incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of the
Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the
registration statements (No. 333-168847) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-178714) on Form F-10 of the Company

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

February 28, 2012
Vancouver, Canada



| |  |                                                                                                                            |  | 
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadian member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss
cooperative. |  |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00575

- CV

B&P DEVELOPMENT, LLC and Chad H. Foster, Jr.,

Appellant s

v.

KNIGHTHAWK, LLC , Series G.,

Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29842

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The clerk ’ s record was due October 23, 2015 , but was not filed. On October 27, 2015

, the clerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk ’ s record was not filed because

appellant s ha ve not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk ’ s fee to prepare the record and

appellant s are not entitled to the record without paying the fee. 1

Accordingly, w e ORDER appellants to provide written proof to this court on or before

November 6, 2015 that either (1) the clerk ’ s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to

the clerk have been made to pay the clerk ’ s fee; or (2) appellant s are entitled to the clerk ’ s record

without prepayment of the clerk ’s fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1

, 35.3(a). If appellant s fail to file

such proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b).

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the distri ct clerk, the

court reporter, and all counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

1 We note that this court has also been advised that appellants have failed to pay for the reporter’s record, and the

reporter intends to file a notification of letter record stating same.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-510 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and DOMINICA 

Effected by Exchange of Notes 

Signed at Washington and Roseau May 10, 2004 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 DOMINICA 

 International Criminal Court: Article 98 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes signed at 

 Washington and Roseau May 10, 2004; 

 Entered into force May 10, 2004.
Slip Op. 07-101

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________

:

SANGO INTERNATIONAL L.P., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES, : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Judge

: Court No. 05-00145

Defendant, :

:

WARD MANUFACTURING, INC., :

ANVIL INTERNATIONAL, INC., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

____________________________________:

ORDER

[Case remanded to Commerce for further proceedings.]

Dated: July 2, 2007

Baker & McKenzie LLP (William D. Outman, II), (Stuart P. Seidel), (Kevin J. Sullivan) for

Plaintiff Sango International, L.P.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, (Patricia M.

McCarthy), Assistant Director; (Kelly B. Blank), (David S. Silverbrand) Commercial Litigation

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Kemba Eneas, Office of the Chief

Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for

Defendant.

Schagrin Associates (Roger B. Schagrin), (Brian E. McGill), (Michael J. Brown) for DefendantIntervenors Ward Manufacturing, Inc., and Anvil International, Inc.

BARZILAY, JUDGE: In accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in

Sango International, L.P. v. United States, No. 2006-1485 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2007), it is hereby 

ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Department of Commerce; it is further
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 2

ORDERED that the Department of Commerce consider the factors set forth in 19 C.F.R.

§ 351.225(k)(2) in its examination of whether Plaintiff’s gas meter swivels and nuts fall within

the scope of the antidumping order at issue, Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the

People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 69,376 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 12, 2003); and it is

further

ORDERED that the Department of Commerce shall submit its findings to the court no

later than September 28, 2007. 

July 2, 2007 /s/ Judith M. Barzilay

Dated:________________________ __________________________

New York, NY Judge
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Norman Hirsch <nhirsch@nha.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:54 PM

To: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Subject: FW: two questions

Attachments: Certificate-of-Status.pd f; EIN-FLAERIALS.pdf

resent

From: Norman Hirsch [ mailto:nhirsch@nha.com ]

Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 3:49 PM

To: 'nia.daniels@faa.gov'

Subject: two questions

Hi Ms. Daniels:

I’m Norman Hirsch and I have a section 333 exemption petition 2015

‐ 0108 and I understand you are the analyst for my

petition.

I have two questions that I hope you can help with.

1. General ballpark of how long it will take to review and approve? I believe mine was posted on Regulations.Gov

on Jan 16.

2. Since sending the petition, I have formed a small LLC and registered it with the State of Florida and obtained the

IRS document so I’m setup with: Florida Aerials, LLC as a small business (see attached). The question I have for

you is whether I should update this information into my petition or let it continue as is and maybe do it later? I

don’t want to delay the approval if I can do it later. I was just thinking that if this business grows and I needed

to hire another pilot to work with me, then perhaps I should register under the LLC rather than what it is now

just my name: Norman Hirsch. Your suggestions/thoughts on this would be appreciated. If I can amend this

later, and/or if it will delay the existing petition, then I’d like to leave it as is. If you believe it is a good idea to

amend it now and it won’t throw me back to the end of the line waiting for approval, then I will send the

documents in using the appropriate format or procedure that is required. If that is the case, please advise

where to find instructions on how to do this if the attached are not sufficient.

Thanks very much!

Best regards

‐‐ Norman Hirsch

--- Florida Aerials, LLC

422 Coral Cove Dr.

Juno Beach, FL 33408

561-827-3337
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS 

ft~IRST SESSION { ('ONvr:sr:nJ"-''H'A!!Y7,loo< 

S8COND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Wednesday, January 22, 1997 

PRr:PAHr:D VNDr~H THg DIRECTION OF GARY SISCO, ~r:CRETARY Or" THE SENATE 

By David G. Marcos, Executive Clerk 
Unanimous Consent Agreement 

Ordered, That at 12:00 Noon on Wednesday, January 22, 1997 the Senate proceed to Executive Session to 

consider the nomination of Madeleine Albright, of the District of Columbia, to be Secretary of State (Cal. No.1); that 

there be 2 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination, with an additionallO minutes 

under the control of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Spector) and that immediately following the expiration or 

yielding back oftime the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination and following the conclusion 

of the vote, the President be notified of the Senate's action and the Senate return to legislative session. 

January 21, 1997 
= 

CAl !l\WlJI 

No 

Ex JU';, 

N!> 

1 

RESOLUTIONS 

REPORTED 

BY 
2 

TREATIES 

CALENDAR TREATY REPORTED 

No. Doc. No. SUBJECT BY 
* 

CALENDAR 

No. 

1 

M&"lSAGE 

No 

1 

3 

NOMINATIONS 

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR 

[NEW REPORTS] 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Madeleine Korbel Albright, of the District of 

Columbia, to be Secretary of State, vice 

Warren Christopher, resigned. 

REPORTED 

BY 

Jan 21, 97 Reported by Mr. Helms, 

Committee on Foreign Relations, 

without printed report. 

* Signifr.es nomznee 's commztment to respond to requests to appear and testLfy before any duly constztuted commzttee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recoimnendation 

Memorandum on Canseco for Congress 

(CFC) 

All-03 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on September 18,2014, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on Canseco for Congress (CFC) (A11-03), as recommended in 

the Memorandum from the Chief Compliance Officer and Audit Division dated 

August 22,2014. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub 

voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Date Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
#### Starr *v.*The State.

Submitted October 17,

Decided November 8, 1906.

Accusation of gaming. Before Judge Morgan. City court of Beiclsville. May 8, 1906.

*Collins & Grey,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. H. Elders, solicitor,*contra.

Beck, J.

The evidence authorized the verdict; no errors of law are com- , plained of, and the judgment of the court below will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 07-08]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Brenda English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-08 with attached transmittal, policy justification, sensitivity of technology, and section 620C(d).

Dated: December 11, 2006.

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 75735)          ( print page 75736)          ( print page 75737)          ( print page 75738)          ( print page 75739)          ( print page 75740)          ( print page 75741)          ( print page 75742)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 06-9746  Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### William C. Adams et al., Respondents, *v.*Elias L. M. Bristol, Appellant, and Samuel F. Adams et al., Respondents.

*Adams*v. *Bristol,*126 App. Div. 660, affirmed.

(Argued June 16, 1909;

decided October 5, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July *51116, 1908, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee in an action of partition.

*Arihitr 0. Townsend*and *Burt L. Rich*for appellant.

*Payson Merrill*and *Alfred H. HoTbrooh*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, and it appearing that since the argument of the appeal one of the defendants, Sarah Jane Hill, has died, it is further ordered that such affirmance be entered as of the 16th of June, 1909, that being the day on which the appeal was submitted to this court for decision; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Grav, Edward T. Bartlett, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.