alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 1 

## Product shipped with losses lower than

current DOE standard

All DOE in

- scope shipped Jun 2010

– Jun

2011 Wes Patterson, PPTR

- NAM, 12 Oct 2011© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 2 Circle = 100% of MVA designed Jun 2010

– Jun 2011

Wedges = % lower losses than the DOE standard© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 3 Circle = 100% of MVA shipped Jun 2010

– Jun 2011

Wedges = % lower losses than the DOE standard
Page **1** of **1**

Date: September 28 , 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0542 SUBJECT: Meeting with The International Council on Clean Transportation On Se ptember 28, 2012, representatives from The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) met with EPA to discuss renewable fuels produced from palm oil. Mr. Chris Malins highlighted several issues discussed in I CCT’s comments (slides attached to this docket entry), including peat soil e missions related to palm oil expansion and palm oil yields . This was followed b y a discussion about data sources and other technical issues. **List of Representatives The ICCT**  1. Mr. Chris Malins 2. Ms. Stephanie Searle **List of Representatives from EPA** Aaron Lev y Program Anal ys t, Transportation and Climate Division (TCD) Angela Dickens AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, TCD
#### Julie B. Relin, Appellant, v Pennie R. Brotherton, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 883]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Relihan, Jr., J.), entered November 18, 1994 in Tompkins County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On May 30, 1990, plaintiff suffered an extension flexion strain of the cervical spine when her vehicle was struck by one operated by defendant. This personal injury action ensued. After issue was joined, defendant moved for summary judgment, upon a prima facie showing that plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court granted the motion, noting that even if the unsworn medical record of plaintiff’s attending physician were considered—plaintiff having submitted no other competent medical proof of her diagnosis or prognosis—it failed to support her position. Plaintiff appeals.

*841An affirmance is in order. The record fails to establish that plaintiffs injuries prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts constituting her usual and customary daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days immediately following the accident (see, *Balshan v Bouck,*206 AD2d 747; *Kim-ball v Baker,*174 AD2d 925, 927). Plaintiff missed three weeks of work and then returned part time for the next three weeks before returning full time. While this missed work time is reported in her medical record, there is scant indication of any pain other than tenderness and tightness as of July 18, 1990. The physician’s notes disclose that plaintiff always had full range of motion, although with discomfort at the initial examination on May 31, 1990. The medical record is devoid of evidence confirming or suggesting any significant curtailment of plaintiffs ability to engage in her normal activities following her return to work full time (see, *Melino v Lauster,*195 AD2d 653, 655, *affd on mem below 82*NY2d 828; *Crane v Richard,*180 AD2d 706, 707). Even accepting that plaintiff required assistance to perform certain job functions, and felt compelled to curtail some of her activities and sports, the record fails to show that the restrictions were medically indicated (see, *Shames v Murtha,*204 AD2d 841, 842) or affected a significant portion of her usual and customary daily activities (see, *King v Johnston,*211 AD2d 907, 908).

Finally, as Supreme Court correctly observed, there is no medical evidence substantiating plaintiffs claim that her limitations were more than mild, minor or slight (see, *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 957; *Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230, 236; *Van Nostrand v Regina, 212*AD2d 883, 884). Accordingly, the order of Supreme Court must be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA

, Appellee

,

v.

SARA GONZALEZ

, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0348

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012

- 137145

- 001 The Honorable John R. Ditsworth

, Judge

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office

, Phoenix By Louise Stark C ounsel for AppellantSTATE v. GONZALEZ
Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

J O H N S E N
, Judge:

¶1 Sara Gonzalez was convicted of second

- degree burglary, a Class 3 felony. The superior court suspended imposition of sentence and imposed a two

- year term of probation. In its written judgment, t he court also ordered Gonzalez to "submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing in accordance with [Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.")] § 13

- 610."

¶2 On appeal, Gonzalez does not dispute her conviction nor the

term of probation the superior court imposed. She argues only that the court erred by ordering her to pay for DNA testing pursuant to A.R.S. §
13

– 610 (2014). 1 The State confesses error, acknowledging that in State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14, 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013) , th is court held that A.R.S. § 13

– 610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA collection fee on a convicted defendant. We agree that pursuant to Reyes, which was issued after Gonzalez was sentenced, the court erred by imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify t he judgment of conviction to omit the requirement that Gonzalez pay the cost of DNA testing.

1 Absent material revision after the all eged offense, we cite a statute' s current version.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

DouglasC. Wride, Chief Financial Officer of Websense, Inc., hereby certifies pursuantto the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that, tothe best of his knowledge:

 

1.The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act and

 

2.The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc.for the period covered by the Annual Report.

 

 
| Dated: | March 4,  2005 |                    |
|--------|---------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                |
|   | By:                 | /s/ DOUGLAS C. WRIDE    |   |
|   |                | Douglas C. Wride        |
|   |                | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

* A signedoriginal of this written statement has been provided to Websense, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of Websense, Inc. under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
Exhibit 10.4





                         Non-Negotiable Promissory Note




$571,609.40                                              November 23, 1999


To be paid within one (1) year, for value received, International Mercantile
Corporation promises to pay to the Sarah Saul Simon Trust the sum of five
hundred seventy-one thousand six hundred nine 40/00 dollars ($571,609.40), at
Baltimore, Maryland, with interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per
annum until balance is paid in full.


                                            Maker:

                                            International Mercantile Corporation



                                            By:/s/Frederic Richardson
                                            Frederic Richardson, Chairman

                                            Address: 1625 Knecht Ave.
                                                              Baltimore, MD  21227



Due:     November 23, 2000
January 8, 1940

No. 42967.

Suit *4214.*

#### *R. W. Gresham*v. *United States.*

Abstract 39488 affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VALENTINA SALAZAR,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 345 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Before the Third Division,

October 14, 1944

No. 49753.

#### Protests 957637-G, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held entitled to free entry or dutiable as follows: (1) Bak hop, lotus nuts (hoi shin lien, hoi pak lien), sui sit, wai san (stick), sar sum (uncut), lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922, following *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372); (2) Wai san (sliced), yuk chuk, and sar sum (cut) were found to be drugs advanced in value, the same as *294those involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra,*and therefore held dutiable at 10 percent ad valorem under pargraph 34, Tariff Act of 1930 or 1922; (3) Apricot kernels similar to those involved in Abstract 34104 were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 760, Tariff Act of 1922; (4) Fungus similar to that involved in *Quong Yu Wo*v. *United States*(T. D. 48003) was held dutiable as vegetables prepared or preserved at 35 percent under paragraph 775, Tariff Act of 1930; (5) Pak choi or dried cabbage similar to that involved in Abstract 24665 was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775; and (6) Fish in'tins, packed in lard and beans, similar to that involved in Abstract 41800, was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 718 (b), Tariff Act of 1930. Protests sustained to this extent.
No. 51071.

#### Protests 58034-K, etc., of Maddock & Miller, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keeee, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oatmeals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
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 Ivision Group Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger Boileau, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  October 23, 2006

By:  /s/ Roger Boileau

Name:  Roger Boileau

Title:    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, John L. McManus, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Russell Skibsted, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each 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 his knowledge:




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.




Date: May 16, 2011


/s/ John L. McManusJohn L. McManusPresident and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)




Date: May 16, 2011


/s/ Russell SkibstedRussell SkibstedChief Financial Officer and Secretary

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





THIS CERTIFICATION “ACCOMPANIES” THE QUARTERLY REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SEC AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS CERTIFICATION 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.
#### State Bar Grievance Administrator v Jaques.

(Docket No. 58697.)

*Louis Rosenzweig,*Counsel to State Bar Grievance Administrator, appellee. *Schlussel, Liñon, Simon, Rands, Kaufman & Lesinski*for appellant.

Application for rehearing filed by the appellant, motion to disqualify appellant’s counsel filed by the State Bar Grievance Board, and motion to extend the time for filing supplementary matter in support of the application for rehearing filed by substituted counsel for the appellant, are considered. It is ordered that the application for rehearing and the motion to extend time are denied, the motion to disqualify appellant’s counsel is denied as moot, and the stay of suspension heretofore granted by order dated August 9, 1976 is terminated.

Reported at 401 Mich 516.

Kavanagh, C. J., and Levin, J., dissenting:

We would grant the motion for an extension of time to provide appellant’s substituted counsel time to review the motion for rehearing and to file supplementary matter in support of such motion.

Certiorari having been granted by the United States Supreme Court in *Ohralik v Ohio State Bar Ass’n,*48 Ohio St 2d 217 (1976), and *In the Matter of Smith,*233 SE2d 301 (1977), and it appearing that the decisions in those cases may be dispositive of the application for rehearing, we would hold the application in abeyance and continue the stay of appellant’s suspension pending the decision in *Ohralik*and *Smith.*

Justice Fitzgerald would grant the motion for an extension of time to file supplementary matter in support of the application and until said matter was considered by the Court would withhold action upon the application for rehearing.

Ordered resubmitted September 29, 1978. 403 Mich 955.
#### THE DIME SAVINGS BANK OF BROOKLYN, Respondent, *v.*FRANK CROOK, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

*JPoreclosure*— *in an action of foreclosure the mortgagor cannot set' up as a defense a defect in Ms title.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury.

The court at General Term said : *“*The defendant Frank Crook, with his father, executed and delivered to the plaintiff their bond for $30,000, and Frank Crook at the same time executed to the plaintiff a mortgage on real property to secure the payment of the bond. This action is brought to foreclose the mortgage, and Frank Crook defends on the ground that his title was defective at the time of its execution. The plaintiff is a *Iona fide*mortgagee and there is no allegation of fraud on the defendant. The only relief sought against the defendant is the foreclosure of his interest in the premises and the recovery for deficiency on his bond.

*672“ The action is inappropriate to the settlement of. a disputed title, and there is no reason why the court should entertain a question concerning the legal title to the mortgaged premises. The purchaser under the judgment will acquire what interest the appellant had in the premises whatever that was. Such title, which was before defeasible, will then become absolute; if there be dispute respecting its nature and extent, that must be adjudicated in some proceeding in which the pleadings and proceedings are adapted to that purpose.

“ Without examination or determination of the extent or sufficiency of the power vested in the father of the defendant, we affirm the judgment on the point already examined.”

*John II. Bergen*and *D. T.*Walden, for the appellant.

*J. I'. Marea/n,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Dykman, J'.;

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Water Hoos, *Appellant, v.*James Person and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.
#### THE COLERAINE. THE NELLIE TRACY.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 13, 1911.)

No. 216.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Martin A. Ryan, for appellant. Wray & Callaghan (Stephen Callaghan and Nelson L. Keack, of counsel), for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree (179 Fed. 977) affirmed, with interest and costs.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5394]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69591), JFC Technologies, LLC., 
100 W. Main Street, Bound Brook, New Jersey 08805, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diphenoxylate (9170).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
JFC Technologies, LLC to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated JFC Technologies, LLC to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: March 8, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-5394 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Charles Werner *et al.,*App’lts, *v.*Mina G. Tuch *et al.,*Resp’ts.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed January 31, 1890.)*

Mobtgage—Robeclosube—Code Crv. Pbo., § 1331.

An undertaking on appeal in a foreclosure case against waste and for value of use and occupation operates as a stay of proceedings without a covenant to pay a deficiency.

Appeal from a judgment of the supreme court, general term, fourth department, affirming judgment for appellant entered m Chemung county, June 2, 1888, upon decision of special term.

*Reynolds, Stanchfield & Collins,*for app’lts; *Simpson &*Werner, for resp’ts.

1

 Affirming 23 N. Y. State Rep., 680.

*37Per Curiam.

The construction of § 1331 of the Code of Civil Procedure, adopted in *Grow*v. *Garlock,*29 Hun, 598, which on an appeal in foreclosure cases holds that an undertaking against waste and for the value of use and occupation operates as a stay of proceedings without a covenant to pay a deficiency, and that the appellant may choose to give either form of the undertaking, with equal effect, is approved for the reasons there given. The order is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.

All concur.