alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Biomass to GreenHydrocarbonsRandal GoodfellowSVP CorporateRelationsNovember 6th, 2008Ensyn Corp1Outline•RTP Technology & Plants•Existing Business Segment Review•Future Development•Strategic Framework2PyrolysisSimply put pyrolysis is a thermo-chemical meansof breaking biomass into pieces, these pieces canthen be used as building blocks for new products3Fast Pyrolysis - RTPTMREHEATERBio-Oil Product950oF< 2sHeat added very quickly by a“tornado” of recycledflowing sand•Fluidized Bed•ProvenTechnology•Not a “Severe”Process•Low Pressure•Very Fast HeatAdditionBiomassFeedstock4RTPTMProduces Three PrimaryCategories of Products•Bio-Oil (liquid) – 75% of Original Weight of theBiomass•Non-Condensable Gas – 12.5% of Original Weightof the Biomass•Char (solid) – 12.5% of Original Weight of theBiomass5Core CompetencyWood/BiomassResiduesLiquid Biomass(“Bio-Oil”)Refined ProductsEnsyn’s Core Competency is the conversion ofsolid Biomass into liquid material (RTPTMTechnology), and the ability to fractionate theliquid economically.6RTPTMProcess DevelopmentSeven R&D and Pilot PlantsBuilt & Tested for variousapplications & purposes7Commercial DevelopmentFirst Commercial Plant constructed in 1989 & sevensince then in the USA and Canada8Commercial DevelopmentRenfrew Canada Plant (2007) is the largest to date(200 green TPD / 100 dried TPD)9HTLTMCommercial Demonstration Facility10Bio-Oil Applications•Bio-Chemicals•Food Ingredients•Bio-Phenolic•Feedstock Chemicals•Pharmaceutical/Nutraceutical•Thermal Energy•Boiler Fuel•Distributed Heating•Replacing #2, #6, Natural Gas, and Coal•Power•Orenda Turbines from 1MW to 25 MW•Transportation Fuels•Fungible (“drop-in”) Bio-Gasoline & Transportation Fuels11Pathways to Renewable Transport Fuel(Royal Society Report – January 2008)12Joint Venture13Lignocellulosic Biomassto Fuels Via PyrolysisStabilizationPyrolysisBiomassMixed WoodsMixed WoodsCorn StoverCorn StoverDeoxygenateyGasolineyDieselyJetyChemicalsOtherRefineryProcessesBiocrude

RefineryPPPPPP 

# Collaboration with DOE, NREL, PNNL JV with Ensy nUOP 4962-1014Commercialization PlanBiomass‘Green’ElectricityFuel OilHeating OilMarine FuelsTransportFuelsTimeline200820112009Stage 1UpgraderStage 2UpgraderMixed WoodsMixed WoodsCornStoverCornStoverAvailableNowPyrolysis Unit 

# Rolling Deployment15Energy Projects:ForestResidualsRTPTMTECHNOLOGYEnergy Projects:C&DUpgraded Fuels(transportation& fuel oils)PetroleumUpgrading(Ivanhoe)Chemicals(food, resin,pharma)StrategicFramework16Thank Youwww.ensyn.comrgoodfellow@ensyn.com17
#### Brookhaven Borough, *v.*American Rendering, Inc., Appellant.

*291Argued March 21, 1969.

May 9, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Robert James Jackson,*with him *Kassab, Cherry, Curran & Archbold,*for appellant.

*Peter J. Rolan,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

In *Commonwealth v. Glen Alden Corporation,*418 Pa. 57, 210 A. 2d 256 (1965), we required the statutory procedures of the Air Pollution Control Act of 1960, P. L. (1959) 2119, 35 P.S. §4001, to be strictly pursued and held that equity had no jurisdiction to inquire into a controversy where to do so would obviate a statutory procedure provided by the legislature for its resolution. The legislature then amended the Air Pollution Control Act of June 12, 1968, P. L. , 35 P.S. §4012.1 by adding, after §12, a new section to read: “Section 12.1 Existing Rights and Remedies Preserved

“Nothing in this act shall be construed as impairing any right or remedy, now or hereafter existing in *292equity, or under common or statutory law, to abate private or public nuisances. No court of this Commonwealth having jurisdiction to abate public or private nuisance shall be deprived of such jurisdiction to abate any private or public nuisance instituted by any person for the reason that such nuisance constitutes air pollution.”

The addition to §12 to the Air Pollution Control Act was part of an extensive amendment strengthening the act which changed the membership and powers of the Commission, changed the powers and duties of the Department of Health and the required Air Pollution Control Association, set forth a new declaration of policy and re-defined air pollution.

It is apparent that the legislature by amending the act extended the same cumulative remedies that presently exist to abate the pollution of the waters of this Commonwealth as contained in the Clean Streams Act of 1937, June 22, P. L. 1987, Art. I, §1 et seq., 35 P.S. 691.1 et seq. to the Air Pollution Control Act. It is now clear that equity jurisdiction attaches to restrain a public or private nuisance caused by air pollution and that the lower court correctly dismissed the preliminary objections to equity jurisdiction.

Order affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by

Mb. Justice O’Brien :

I would quash this appeal on the authority of *Studio*Theaters, *Inc. v. Washington,*418 Pa. 73, 78, 209 A. 2d 802 (1965). In that case we held that the existence of a statutory remedy at law was not jurisdictional and thus the dismissal of preliminary objections raising the question was. not appealable under the Act of 1925.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell and Mr. Justice Roberts join in this dissent.
Exhibit 31.4**CERTIFICATION**I, Craig D. Abolt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 3, 2006         By:             /s/ Craig D. Abolt    Craig D. Abolt    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
48
#### Henry Winchell, *Appellant, v.*Stephen Winchell and another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Daniel Gold, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Marshall Edwards, Inc. (the
Registrant), and Thomas Zech, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



|1. | The Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, (the Form 10-Q) to which this Certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of the period covered by the
Form 10-Q and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by the Form 10-Q.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These certifications
accompanying the Form 10-Q to which they relate, are not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant 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 Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

Dated: May 16, 2011



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Daniel Gold         |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas Zech        
|Daniel Gold             |  |  |  | Thomas Zech            
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
NO. 14-15-00643-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant
V. ALISON DAVIDSON, ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellees Appealedfromthe DistrictCourt ofHarris County, Texas 127th Judicial District Honorable R.K. Sandill, Judge Presiding
APPELLANT’S DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT OFAPPEALS: COMES NOW, CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D[B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL and designates LaVerne Chang as lead counsel on appeal. On July 23, 2015 a Motion for Substitute ofCounsel was filed in the 127th Court ofHarris County, Texas and granted on July 30, 2015. ACCEPTED 2014-20812 FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/11/2015 5:23:37 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### 2. CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL, under Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 6.1(c), designates LaVerne Chang as lead counsel forthis appeal. 3. The necessary information forLaVeme Chang is as follows: 

### LaVerne Chang StateBarNo. 

### 00783819 Cardwell & Chang, P.LL.C. 511 LovettBlvd. Houston, Texas 77006 Telephone: (713) 222-6025 Facsimile: (713) 222-0938 4. For these reasons, CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL asks the Court to instruct the clerk to change the record to reflectthat LaVeme Chang is lead counsel for CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITALin this case on appeal. Respectfully submitted,
By:


### Email: chang@cardwellchang.com 511 LovettBlvd. Houston, Texas 77006 Telephone: (713) 222-6025 Facsimile: (713) 222-0938 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL Cardwell &
LaVeme Chang S.B. No. 00783819

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this the 11th day of August, 2015, a 

### true and correctcopy ofthe above and foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel ofrecord viaE-File andFax: E.A. “Trey” Apffel, III Matthew B. E. Hughes Apffel Law Firm Boston & Hughes, PC 1406-C WestMain 8584 Katy Freeway, Suite 310 League City, Texas 77573 Houston, Texas 77024 Facsimile: (281) 332-7887 Facsimile: (713) 965-0883 trey@apffellaw.com mhughes @bostonhughes.com tern @apffellaw.com

LAVERNE CHANG
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2021

No. 04-20-00530-CV

Abelardo G. GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

Isidro R. ALANIZ and Pedro Morales,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CVK001190D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On January 22, 2021, Appellant filed a motion notifying this court that the clerk and 

reporter had not yet filed the clerk’s and reporter’s records as requested. The motion asked this 

court to order the clerk and reporter to file their records. 

On November 3, 2020, the clerk filed the clerk’s record. On or about January 13, 2021, 

this court advised the reporter to file the record by February 12, 2021. Appellant’s motion is 

MOOT.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2
**Certification**
     I, James H. Moyle, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Knowles Electronics Holdings, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement ofmaterial fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedurespresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions);
     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 28, 2005         By:  /s/ James H. Moyle    James H. Moyle   *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
March 1 4 , 2012

The Honorable Ray

L aHood, Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

- 0001 RE: Docket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182 Dear Secretary

L aHood: The Universit y of Louisville is pleased to offer its support to the efforts of Frontier Airlines Inc. to initiate new nonstop jet service between Louisville, KY and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Frontier’s proposal brings important competition to one our region’s top air service routes , expands the availa bility of low fares in the L ouisville market , and significantly expands access a top destination for business and leisure activities. We have found Louisville and Southern Indiana to be an excellent place in which to do business , and we believe that compe titive jet service to the nation’s capital will greatly enhance the travel options available from Louisville International Airport. We strongl y encourage the Department of Transportation to approve Frontier’s proposal for new low

cost, large jet air servic e between Louisville and Washington DC. Sincerel y, Mrs. Kerry

E. Schmidt Director of Accounting Operations
1 

### SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE 1 **2011 MT**  **269 ;**  **DA 10**  **- 0260:**  **S TATE**  **OF MONTANA,**  P laintiff and Appellee, v. **MILES CASSIDY KINGMAN,** Defendant and Appellant. The Montana Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed the aggravated assault conviction and sentence of Miles Kingman. Kingman was charged with brutally assaulting Paul Overby outside a Bozeman bar in September 2008. On appeal ,Kingman claimed that his right to a fair trial was violated when the trial judge refused to move his trial from Gallatin County because of the pre - trial publicity. The Court disagreed and affirmed Kingman’s conviction and his 20

- year sentence. The charge ag

ainst Kingman arose out of an incident behind the Scoop Bar inthe early morning hours of September 17, 2008. Kingman and his friend Ryan D ibert got into an altercation with Paul Overby regarding a motor scooter parked behind the bar. All three men had been drinking, and witnesses to the incident saw Kingman, Dibert, and Overby shouting, gesturing, and posturing. Kingman and Dibert began to walk away, but Overby shoved Kingman several times from behind and hit Kingman once. Kingman turned and punched Overby, knocking him to the ground. Kingman then g ot on top of Overby and punched him in the face 15 to 20 times, causing extensive f r acturest o the vast majority of the bones in Overby’s face , as well as an open fracture to his brain

. Overby nearly died from the incident. S hortly afterward, Kingman left a voice ma il
me ssage for a friendin which Kingman bragged about beating Overby. The Stat e charged Kingman with attempted deliberate homicide. At trial, Kingman argued that he had acted in self

- defense. The jury acquitted him of the homicide c harg e but conv

icted him of aggravated assault, a lesser

- included offense. On appeal, Kingman claimedthat the publicity surrounding the incident had prejudiced the Gallatin County community to such an extent that he c ould not g et a fair trial by jurors drawn from that community. Kingman cited newspaper reports from the Bozeman Daily Chronicleand T he Bo Zone , plus several broadcasts on television station
1 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the Opinion of the Co urt and may not be cited as precedent. November 1 20112

KBZK. The S upreme Court , agreeing with the District Court, concluded that Kingman had not showna

sufficient basis for presuming that the entire Gallatin County jury pool
wascorrupted by the pre -trial publicity. As for his20

- year sentence, Kingman arg uedthat the prosecutor had improperly characterized him at the sentencing hearing as an “animal” that “needed to be caged.” The Supreme Court agreed that the prosecutor’s remarks were inappropriate, but f ound
no indication that the remarks had factored into the District Court ’sdecision to impose the maximum sentence for aggravated assault

.
AFS-10-404-E 

Oct 08 2010 

 Exemption No. 8827B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-19374 

Ms. Lori M. Kingsley 

Supervisor, Flight Test Engineering 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707 M/S 14-KF 

Seattle, WA 98124-2207 

Dear Ms. Kingsley: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8827, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 14, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an extension of Exemption No. 8827, 

as amended. That exemption from § 91.529(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

permits flight engineers, employed by Boeing, to serve as flight engineers on B-707 and B747 aircraft if they have logged a minimum of 20 hours in lieu of the required 50 hours of 

flight time as flight engineers on the particular type aircraft within the preceding 12 months, 

provided the combined flight time in any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, or Level B, C, or D 

simulator that represents any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, is at least 100 hours in the preceding 12 

calendar months. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8827, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8827, as amended, to 

January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8827, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8827. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service