alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Joseph Rykowski" <Joseph.Rykowski@ormet.com>

Date: 12/13/2010 10:27AM

Subject: RE: Ormet Database Files

For the spreadsheets that were in the zip file (other than the ReleasePoint sheet), what updated 

information do you need? Some of the information on some of the sheets that I've seen I have no idea 

where it came from, or even what year it came from. If you could let me know this as soon as possible, it 

would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe Rykowski

Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp.

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:16 AM

To: Joseph Rykowski

Cc: Robert Strieter

Subject: Re: Ormet Database Files

It looks like we accidentally left out the units in the release point spreadsheet but 

they are the same units that are shown in the Whole Facility HAPs and Category 

HAPs spreadsheet. Temperature is degrees F, exit velocity is ft/sec.

Bob, can you forward this to the others. Thanks 

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov 

From: "Joseph Rykowski" <Joseph.Rykowski@ormet.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/08/2010 04:01 PM

Subject: Ormet Database Files

I have a quick question about the database file. What units are the exit gas temperature and exit gas 

velocity in?
[Cite as State v. Threatt, 2020-Ohio-331.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2019-P-0111

 - vs - : 

KEITH A. THREATT, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017 CR 00248. 

Judgment: Dismissed. 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, 

OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Keith A. Threatt, pro se, PID# 760-996, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501 

Thompson Road, P.O. Box 8000, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Defendant-Appellant). 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J. 

{¶1} On December 16, 2019, appellant, Keith A. Threatt, pro se, filed a motion 

for leave to file a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A). No notice of appeal was 

filed in the trial court. 

{¶2} App.R. 5(A) provides: 

{¶3} “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the 

filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave 

of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: 
2

{¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; 

{¶5} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and 

{¶6} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. 

{¶7} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals 

and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of 

right. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the 

trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of 

the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. * * *.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶8} In the present case, appellant’s motion is procedurally defective because 

he failed to file a notice of appeal in the trial court concurrently with the filing of his 

motion for leave to appeal in this court. 

{¶9} Accordingly, appellant’s motion is hereby overruled, and this matter is 

dismissed. 

{¶10} We note that appellant is not barred from filing a new motion for leave to 

file a delayed appeal, along with a notice of appeal, which complies with the rules of 

court. 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

MATT LYNCH, J., 

concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Evans v. Carey

NO. Civ. S-04-2051 LKK KJM

ORDER

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, #89424

Acting Federal Defender

CAROLYN M. WIGGIN, Bar #182732

Assistant Federal Defender

Designated Counsel for Service

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

KELVIN J. EVANS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN J. EVANS,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.

Respondents.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. S-04-2051 LKK KJM

ORDER

Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and good cause

appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be and hereby is DISMISSED. 

The clerk of the court is directed to close the file.

DATED: March 28, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

HONORABLE LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02051-LKK -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE FIELDS, Jr., Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 119, 41 CMR 119

No. 22,021

December 12, 1969

*Everett E. RicJcs, Jr., Esquire, Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Colonel Martin S. Drucker,*and *Captain Thomas R. Maher*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Major R. Kevin McHugh,*and *Captain Salvatore A. Romano*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Culminating a period of marital conflict, the accused shot and killed his wife. The homicide was committed in a parking lot near their residence within the geographical limits of Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. In due course, the accused was convicted by a general court-martial convened at Schofield Barracks of wrongful appropriation of a pistol and the premeditated murder of his wife, in violation of Articles 121 and 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921 and 918, respectively.

On this appeal, the accused contends that in light of the constitutional limitation on court-martial jurisdiction defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969), he was not subject to trial by court-martial for murder in violation of the Uniform Code because his act also constituted a violation of the Federal civilian penal code and the criminal law of the State of Hawaii, which purportedly has “concurrent jurisdiction over military installations in Hawaii.”

In United States v Crapo, 18 USCMA 594, 40 CMR 306, we held that an act in violation of the Uniform Code which is committed on a military installation has “military significance” of the kind recognized in the *O’Callahan*case as supportive of the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction. See also *120United States v Smith, 18 USCMA 609, 40 CMR 321. In United States v Allen, 19 USCMA 31, 41 CMR 31, we determined that the right of a state to prosecute a serviceman for murder in violation of state law because it has concurrent jurisdiction with the military over the place where the act was committed does not eliminate the “military significance” of the homicide and deny the military the right to prosecute it as a violation of the Uniform Code. Similarly, the fact that an act having military significance may also constitute a violation of a Federal penal statute, for which the accused may be triable in a Federal district court, does not preclude the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction for a violation of an article of the Uniform Code. United States v Harris, 18 USCMA 596, 40 CMR 308. We conclude, therefore, that the court-martial had jurisdiction to try the accused for the homicide in issue.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges Ferguson and Darden concur.
Exhibit32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Alamosa (Delaware), Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’)for the fiscal year ended December  31,  2005, as filed withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Paul N. Saleh, as ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                  |  |                                                  |  |  |  |  |
|------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| /s/ PaulN. Saleh |
| Name:Title:Date: |  | Paul N.SalehChief Financial OfficerMarch 31,2006 |
|                  |

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

----
Exhibit 10.2










March 9, 2014
 
 Partner Communications Company Ltd.
 8 Amal Street
 Afeq Industrial Park
 Rosh-Ha’ayin  48103
 Israel
  Dear Sirs:
 
 On behalf of Giza Singer Even, 7 Jabotinsky St. Ramat-Gan(the “Consultant”), I hereby confirm that the Consultant has reviewed the information set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 20-F”), for Partner Communications Company Ltd. under Item 5A.1d “Acquisition of 012 Smile”, and in Note 4 and Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Form 20-F, with respect to testing for impairment of assets and the results thereof.
 
 The Consultant hereby confirms the information referred to above and consents to being named in the Form 20-F as an “expert”.


By:_____/S/_____
 Giza Singer Even LTD.
 
 Name: Alex Shechter
 Title: Partner
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-86,886-01 and -02

EX PARTE JESSE SCOTT SHOBERT, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR11-0567-01; CR11-0771-01 IN THE 415th DISTRICT COURT

FROM PARKER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon and possession of certain chemicals with intent to manufacture

methamphetamine and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment in each cause. The Eighth Court

of Appeals affirmed his aggravated assault conviction. Shobert v. State, No. 08-12-00043-CR (Tex.

App.—El Paso Apr. 19, 2013) (not designated for publication). No appeal was taken in the other

conviction.

Applicant contends, among other things, that hispleas were involuntarydue to the ineffective
2

assistance of his counsel. Specifically, Applicant alleges his counsel erroneouslypromised him that,

if he went to the jury for sentencing, he could convince the jury to grant Applicant shock probation

in both cases. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. In these circumstances,

additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court may use any

means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court

may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Applicant’s

claim that his pleas were involuntary due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. The trial court

shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and

appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 
3

Filed: July 26, 2017

Do not publish
No. 58086.

protest 110994-K (Pembina).

#### W. F. Mackay *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the Western white spruce lumber the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1538), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
February 28, 1944

No. 49232.

Suit 4467.

#### United *States*v. *American Shipping Co.*

C. D. 771. Appeal dismissed January 3, 1944.
No. 56478.

protests 177462-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Broadcasting Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7634

DERWIN PETERSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLONEL MELETIS, Superintendent; SERGEANT OUTLAND, Shift Sgt.; 

OFFICER BAKER, Post Officer,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00753-RDA-MSN)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derwin Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derwin Peterson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order directing him to file a 

third amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We review a district court’s dismissal 

under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Attkisson v. Holder, 925 F.3d 606, 625 (4th Cir. 

2019). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we 

affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         I, Andrew C. Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code that:

         (1) the Registrant's Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Registrant for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), to which
this statement is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  May 2, 2005                 By:  /s/ Andrew C. Schmidt
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Andrew C. Schmidt
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 13
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
  /s/ Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamName:
    Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lai Ni QuiaqueName:
    Lai Ni QuiaqueTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
```
**Exhibit 32.01

                            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 quarterly report of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Jason McDiarmid      
Jason McDiarmid
Chief Executive Officer
June 19, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
```
Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 75    Filed 06/14/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 75    Filed 06/14/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 75    Filed 06/14/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 75    Filed 06/14/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 75    Filed 06/14/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-21T19:16:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________
HELICOS BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

AND
ARIZONA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLO GY ENTERPRISES , LLC, (doing business as Arizona Technol o gy Enterprises ), Plaintiff,

v. PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

AND LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CO RPORATION, Defendants,

AND ILLUMINA, INC., Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________
2013

- 1060

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 10

- CV

- 0735, Judge Sue L. Robinson. Case: 13-1060 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2013HELICOS BIOSCIENCES CORP

. v. PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES 2

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________
O R D E R

The parties jointly move to dismiss the appeal due to settlement. Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is di smissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. (3) All other pending motions are denied as moot.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s25
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 15, 2013 Case: 13-1060 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2013
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Brian Hackett,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2088 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

D. Kimbrell, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoApril 25, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time to

file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s

request is granted and time is extended until 30 days from the

date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: May 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02088-FCD-EFB Document 22 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 1
# C_2007141EN.01002501.xml

| 26.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/25

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by Italy of the public service obligation in respect of the scheduled air service between Pantelleria and Trapani

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 141/10)

In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), the Italian Government has decided to modify the public service obligation in respect of the scheduled air service between Pantelleria and Trapani, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 112, 12.5.2006, p. 4, concerning point 2.4 on the fares applicable to these routes.

1

Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with point 2.4(b) of the public service obligation, the fares are revised as follows:

| Route | Revised fare |
| --- | --- |
| Pantelleria-Trapani or vice versa | EUR 26 |

Route

Revised fare

Pantelleria-Trapani or vice versa

EUR 26

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 112, 12.5.2006, p. 4, remain unchanged.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

1

---
No. 58605.

protest 227560-K (New York).

#### Berg, Hedstrom & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.