alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(logo)Deloitte &
       Touche LLP

                   Two Hilton Court                Telephone:     (201) 631-7000
                   P.O. Box 319                    Facsimile:     (201) 631-7459
                   Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-0319            



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON THE UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS


Board of Directors
 The Prudential Home Mortgage Company, Inc.
Frederick, Maryland

We have examined  management's  assertion about the compliance of The Prudential
Home Mortgage  Company,  Inc., and  subsidiaries  (the Company) with the minimum
servicing standards  identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) as of and for the
year ended December 31, 1995, included in the accompanying management assertion.
Management  is  responsible  for the  Company's  compliance  with those  minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  The  Prudential  Home  Mortgage
Company,  Inc.,  and  subsidiaries  complied  with  the  aforementioned  minimum
servicing  standards as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1995,  is fairly
stated, in all material respects.



/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
March 22, 1996



Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu
International
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate 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 Quarterly Report of Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ George G. AndrewsGeorge G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer


November 14, 2007



20
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.028-3 Requirements. ( a ) In addition to the requirements of this subpart, every portable fire extinguisher must be tested and listed for marine use by a recognized laboratory as defined in 46 CFR 159.001-3, and must comply with the following standards (incorporated by reference, see § 162.028-1), as appropriate: ( 1 ) UL 8;
( 2 ) UL 154;
( 3 ) UL 299;
( 4 ) UL 626;
( 5 ) UL 711; and
( 6 ) UL 2129.
( b ) Every portable fire extinguisher must be self-contained; when charged, it must not require any additional source of extinguishing agent or expellant energy for its operation during the time it is being discharged. It must weigh no more than 50 pounds when fully charged.
( c ) Every portable fire extinguisher must be supplied with a suitable bracket which will hold the extinguisher securely in its stowage location on vessels or boats, and which is arranged to provide quick and positive release of the extinguisher for immediate use. During vibration testing, the extinguisher must be tested in the marine bracket.
( d ) Every portable extinguisher may be additionally examined and tested to establish its reliability and effectiveness in accordance with the intent of this specification for a “marine type” portable fire extinguisher when considered necessary by the Coast Guard or by the recognized laboratory.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48278, July 22, 2016]
§ 159.005-1 Purpose. ( a ) This subpart contains the procedures by which the Coast Guard approves equipment and materials under other subparts of this subchapter that require— ( 1 ) Preapproval inspections and tests by an independent laboratory;
( 2 ) Preapproval inspections and tests by the manufacturer; or
( 3 ) No preapproval inspections or tests.
( b ) [Reserved]
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 7397

JAMES ALLEN HILL

,

Petitioner

- Appellant

,

v.

BRYAN K. WELLS

,

Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:19

- hc

- 02018

- FL )

Submitted : January 21, 20 20 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON

, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

James Allen Hill , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

James Allen Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district cou rt

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 (200 7).

The district court entered its order on June 27, 2019. Hill filed his notice of appeal,

at the earliest, on September 2 0 , 2019. * Because Hill failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we den y leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Hill’s motion for remand. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date the notice 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 , 270 (1988).
History: 

Hey Brian, 

Re: GHG emissions Ill 

Kathleen Forney to: Brian Glover 

Cc: Lorinda Shepherd, Kyle Heitkamp, Michael Carbon 

This message has been forwarded. 

07/18/2012 11:08 AM 

You dont need to calculate your fee based off of co2e emissions. I actually 

don't the answer to the insignificant activities lsit. We will look into that 

and get back to you on that. 

Thanks, 

Katy 

Katy R. Forney 

Energy Sector Technical Authority 

Air Permits Section 

EPA - Region 4 

61 Forsyth St., SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone: 404-562-9130 

Fax: 404-562-9059 

-----Brian Glover <bglover@environcorp.com> wrote: -----

To: Lorinda Shepherd/R4/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathleen Forney/R4/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: Brian Glover <bglover@environcorp.com> 

Date: 07/18/2012 08:45AM 

Cc: Kyle Heitkamp <kheitkamp@environcorp.com>, Michael Carbon 

<mcarbon@environcorp.com> 

Subject: GHG emissions 

Ladies, 

Can you tell me if C02e should be considered with regards to determining 

whether a source can be deemed an insignificant emissions unit under Part 71? 

The rules have changes since we prepared the Shell application and I'm 

wondering if sources would not meet the insignificant criteria if C02e 

emissions are greater than 2 tpy. Similarly, should C02e emissions be 

considered in determining the application fee? 

Thanks for your help. 

Brian 

[cid:image002.jpg@01CD64B9.2B5C0270]<http://www.environcorp.com/> 

Brian Glover I Senior Manager 

ENVIRON International Corporation 

8235 YMCA Plaza Drive I Suite 300 

Baton Rouge, LA 70810 

T: +1 225 408 2741 I F: +1 225 408 2747 I M: +1 225 252 6562 

bglover@environcorp.com<mailto:bglover@environcorp.com> 
This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or 

otherwise protected by law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive 

use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or authorized agent of 

the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the 

message or any information contained within. If you have received this message 

in error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to 

email@environcorp.com and immediately delete all copies of the message.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, Robert S. Herlin, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Evolution Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”), certifiesin connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission ofthe Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,2009 (the “Report”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to hisknowledge, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thiscertification as of the 23rd day of September, 2009.

 
|   | /s/ ROBERT S. HERLIN                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Robert S. Herlin                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Evolution Petroleum Corporation andwill be retained by Evolution Petroleum Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certificate is being furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this Form 10-Kand shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.

 

----
#### § 120.540 Elevators.

Each elevator on a vessel must meet the requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A17.1. “Safety Code for Elevators, and Escalators,” or other standard specified by the Commandant.
#### § 138.100 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe requirements for owners or managing operators of towing vessels who adopt a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) under this subchapter.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30743

Summary Calendar

ALISHA SMITH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ALISHA SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SEARS ROEBUCK & CO., ET AL,

Defendants,

AMERICAN & FOREIGN INSURANCE

COMPANY; R A S BUILDERS, INC.; ROYAL

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

96-CV-2815

July 28, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 PER CURIAM: *

Alisha Smith appeals an adverse judgment as a matter of law rendered at the

conclusion of her case in chief during trial. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Smith was employed as a n auditor with R.G.I.S., an inventory company hired

by Sears Roebuck & Co. On February 24, 1996, Smith reported to work at the

Sears store in Acadiana Mall in Lafayette, Louisiana. Upon her arrival, she was

assigned first to the clothing department and then to the har dware stock room.

While working in the hardware stock room she was struck in the head by a board.

Smith instituted a state court action against Sears and RAS Builders, Inc., a

contractor remodeling certain areas of the Sears store during the time period in

question. Smith alleged that both Sears and RAS were negligent in placement of

the board and in causing it to fall. Sears removed the action to federal court based

on diversity jurisdiction.

At the conclusion of Smith’s case in chief during the course of a jury trial,

RAS and American Foreign Insurance Company moved for judgment as a matter

of law. The trial court granted that motion, concluding that Smith failed to offer2 Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey , 201 F.3d 680, 687 (5 th Cir. 2000).

3 Id.

4 Id. at 687-88; Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).

3 any evidence that RAS was legally liable for her injuries.

ANALYSIS

We review the challenged decision de novo

, applying the same legal standard

as the district court. 2 All evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant, and all inferences are drawn in the nonmovant’s favor. 3 If “there is no

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury” to find for the nonmovant,

judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. 4

A close review of the record on appeal and briefs persuades that the district

court did not err in its conclusion that Smith failed to submit any evidence in

support of her claim that RAS is liable for her injuries. Accordingly, there being

no legally sufficient evidentiary basis upon which a reasonable jury could find for

Smith, judgment as a matter of law herein was appropriate.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
#### § 16.109 Public Interest Exclusion (PIE).

Service agents are subject to Public Interest Exclusion (PIE) actions in accordance with 49 CFR Part 40, subpart R. The PIE is an action which excludes from participation in DOT's drug and alcohol testing program any service agent who, by serious noncompliance with this part or with 49 CFR part 40, has shown that it is not currently acting in a responsible manner.

[USCG-2000-7759, 66 FR 42968, Aug. 16, 2001]
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

GOOD MAN PRODUCTIONS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action Case No. 

)

v. )

)

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address )

98.209.102.55, ) 

)

Defendant. )

)

NOTICE OF FILING RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to Rule 7.1, Plaintiff does not have a parent 

corporation or a publicly held corporation that owns more than 10% of its stock. 

Respectfully submitted,

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul J. Nicoletti, Esq. (P-44419)

33717 Woodward Ave, #433

Birmingham, MI 48009

Tel: (248) 203-7800

E-Fax: (248) 928-7051

Email: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2:14-cv-14636-SJM-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 12/08/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 11
§ 13.503 Service requirements. ( a ) Each applicant for a tankerman-engineer endorsement must present evidence of at least— ( 1 ) 90 days of service as an engineering officer on tankships or self-propelled tank vessels certified to carry DL or LG appropriate to the endorsement applied for;
( 2 ) 90 days of rating or cadet service in the engine department on tankships or self-propelled tank vessels certified to carry DL or LG appropriate to the endorsement applied for; or
( 3 ) A combination of the service in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section.
( b ) Each applicant already holding an MMD or MMC endorsed as tankerman-engineer for DL and seeking an endorsement for LG, or the converse, must prove at least half the service required by paragraph (a) of this section.
[CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17142, Apr. 4, 1995, as amended by CGD 79-116, 62 FR 25134, May 8, 1997; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11260, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77997, Dec. 24, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
THE REGISTRANT?S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                        784,204
<SECURITIES>                                  532,869
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  8,227,051
<INVENTORY>                                   198,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10,322,072
<PP&E>                                        3,498,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,108,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                30,119,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         9,182,914
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   2,906,683
<COMMON>                                      14,847,076
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  30,119,366
<SALES>                                       12,857,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              32,629,218
<CGS>                                         19,771,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 19,771,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              10,722,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            562,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               113,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (31,406)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  145,019
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00



</TABLE>
§ 137.300 Intervals for drydock and internal structural examinations. ( a ) Regardless of the option chosen to obtain a COI, upon obtaining a COI each towing vessel must then undergo a drydock and internal structural examination at the following intervals: ( 1 ) A vessel that is exposed to salt water more than 6 months in any 12-month period since the last examination or initial certification must undergo a drydock and internal structural examination at least twice every 5 years, with not more than 36 months between examinations.
( 2 ) A vessel that is exposed to salt water not more than 6 months in any 12-month period since the last examination or initial certification must undergo a drydock and internal structural examination at least once every 5 years.
( b ) The cognizant OCMI may require additional examinations of the vessel whenever he or she discovers or suspects damage or deterioration to hull plating or structural members that may affect the seaworthiness or fitness for the route or service of a vessel. These examinations may include a drydock examination, including: ( 1 ) An internal structural examination of any affected space of a vessel, including its fuel tanks;
( 2 ) A removal of the vessel from service to assess the extent of the damage and to affect permanent repairs; or
( 3 ) An adjustment of the drydock examination intervals to monitor the vessel's structural condition.
#### § 15.101 Purpose of regulations.

The purpose of this part is to set forth uniform minimum requirements for the manning of vessels. In general, they implement, interpret, or apply the specific statutory manning requirements in title 46, U.S.C., implement various international conventions which affect merchant marine personnel, and provide the means for establishing the complement necessary for safe operation of vessels.

[CGD 81-059, 52 FR 38652, Oct. 16, 1987, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78000, Dec. 24, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.022-5 Marking. ( a ) *Directions for use.* Each floating orange smoke distress signal shall be plainly and indelibly marked in black lettering not less than 3 mm (1 ⁄ 8 in.) high “Approved for daytime use only”, and in black lettering not less than 5 mm (3 ⁄ 16 in.) high with the word “Directions”. Immediately below shall be similarly marked in black lettering not less than 3 mm (1 ⁄ 8 in.) high: “1. Use Only When Aircraft or Vessel Is Sighted”. Then in numbered paragraphs, in similar lettering, there shall follow in simply and easily understood wording, instructions to be followed to make the device operative. Pasted-on labels are not acceptable.
( b ) *Other markings.* ( 1 ) There shall be embossed or die-stamped, in the outer container in figures not less than 5 mm (3 ⁄ 16 in.) high, numbers, indicating the month and year of manufacture, thus: “6-54” indicating June 1954. The outer container shall also be plainly and indelibly marked with the commercial designation of the signal, the words “Floating Orange Smoke Distress Signal”, name and address of the manufacturer, the Coast Guard Approval No., the service life expiration date (month and year to be entered by the manufacturer), the month and year of manufacture and the lot number.
( 2 ) In addition to any other marking placed on the smallest packing carton or box containing floating orange smoke distress signals, such cartons or boxes shall be plainly and indelibly marked to show the service life expiration date, the month and year of manufacture, and the lot number.
( 3 ) The largest carton or box in which the manufacturer ships signals must be marked with the following or equivalent words: “Keep under cover in a dry place.”
( c ) *Marking of expiration date.* The expiration date must be not more than 42 months from the date of manufacture.
Note:
Compliance with the labeling requirements of this section does not relieve the manufacturer of the responsibility of complying with the label requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1263, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      April 15, 2010  | By:   | /s/ David Bruce Hong          |
|----------------------------------|-----------------|------------------------------------|
|                             |            | David      Bruce Hong              |
|                             |            | Chief      Executive Officer  |

----