alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of California 

 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Executive Order R-11-002 

Relating to the Amendments of Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diesel Engines 

on Commercial Harbor Craft Operated Within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of 

the California Baseline 

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2010, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) conducted a 

public hearing to consider proposed amendments to reduce emissions from diesel 

engines on commercial harbor craft operated within California waters and 24 nautical 

miles of the California baseline, as set forth in the Initial Statement of Reasons released 

to the public on May 7, 2010;

WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 10-26 , in which 

the Board approved amendments to title 13, California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code 

Regs.,) section 2299.5, and title 17, Cal. Code Regs., section 93118.5, as set forth in 

Attachment A thereto, with the modifications set forth in Attachment B thereto; 

WHEREAS, Resolution 10-26, directed the Executive Officer to take final action to 

adopt the regulations set forth in Attachments A and B thereto, and such other 

conforming modifications as may be appropriate, after making the modified regulatory 

language available for public comment for a period of 15 days, provided that the 

Executive Officer shall consider such written comments as may be submitted during this 

period, shall make such modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments 

received, and shall present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if the 

Executive Officer determines that this is warranted; 

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2010, the approved regulations, with the changes to the 

originally proposed text clearly indicated, have been made available for public comment 

for a period of 15 days in accordance with the provisions of title 1, California Code of 

Regulations, section 44; and 

WHEREAS, no written comments were received during the 15 day comment period.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the recitals and findings contained in 

Resolution 10-26 are incorporated herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that section 2299.5, title 13, Cal. Code Regs., and section 

93118.5, title 17, Cal. Code Regs., are approved and adopted as set forth in Attachment 

I to this Order. 
Executive Order R-11-002 -2- 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the adopted regulatory text may be further revised with 

nonsubstantive changes, which will be added to the rulemaking record and indicated as 

such. 

Executed this __11th ____ day of April 2011, at Sacramento, California. 

 

 /s/ 

 James N. Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

Attachment
#### Frank Alvarez *v.*United States

No. 7323.

Pro forma invoice dated Mexico, D. F., September 18, 1943.

Entered at Laredo, Tex., September 23, 1943.

Entry No. 1863.

(Decided June 30, 1947)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of leather articles imported from Mexico. At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff stated that the merchandise was shipped in March 1943 but was not entered until September 1943; that in the interim there was a continuous rise in prices; that the entry was made by the broker without regard to the increase in values but that the importer had no knowledge that entry was being made at the same values at which he had purchased the articles, because he believed that they had been entered shortly after shipment; and that under the circumstances the reappraisement case was abandoned without prejudice to a petition for remission of additional duties.

The appeal for reappraisement is therefore dismissed without prejudice to a petition for remission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Harriet Keeler, *Appellant, v.*Burr Keeler 2d, and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
**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 DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Magnus Ryde, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and 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 Exchange Act; and 

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

Date: November 15, 2010
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTING REFORM AND**


**INVESTOR
      PROTECTION ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
      Richard P. Burgoon, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Michael P. McManus, Chief
      Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report 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 of the Company at the end of the
                period
                covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for
                the
                period covered by the Report.





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





This
      certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, 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 (whether made before or
      after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.








/s/
      Richard P. Burgoon, Jr.


Richard
      P. Burgoon, Jr.


Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


February
      16, 2006








/s/
      Michael P. McManus


Michael
      P. McManus


Chief
      Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Secretary


February
      16, 2006
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000778 23-MAY-2014 09:15 AM
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rajiv Khosla, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











July 3, 2014
By:
/s/Rajiv KhoslaRajiv KhoslaPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140402

NEWARK MORNING LEDGER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140402 COA: 283723 Ct of Claims: 00-017603-CM DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
Sun Trust Mortgage, Inc.
Post Office Box 26149
Richmond, VA. 23260-6149
1-800-634-7928

(LOGO) SUNTRUST

February 10,2000

Arthur Andersen LLP
133 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta,GA 30303

Dear Sirs:

As of and for the year ended December 31,1999,Sun Trust Mortgage,Inc. has
complied in all materials respects with the minimum servicing standards set
forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period, Sun
Trust Mortgage,Inc. had in effect a fidelty bond and errors and ommissions
policy in the amounts of $100,000,000 and $28,500,0000 respectively.

Sincerely,
Ralph B. Carrigan

Executive Vice President
Before the Second Division,

March 25, 1952

No. 56488.

protest 152998-K (Pittsburgh).

#### Walton W. Tustin *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the goods in controversy at the time of entry were articles of which metal was the component material of chief value and were not ores or concentrates or crude metal; that said articles were imported to be used in remanufacture by melting; that since entry said •articles were melted and remanufactured by melting. An examination of the papers disclosed that affidavits have been filed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the agreed statement of facts and the record presented, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
#### The Long Island R. R. Co., App’lt, *v.*The City of Brooklyn, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Railroads—Street crossings—Laws 1853, chap. 63.

Defendant gave its consent to the construction of plaintiff's road through the city, “so as to conform to the grade of the streets which they cross and run through, as laid down in the grade maps of the city.” *Held,*that this applied to all streets which had been or may be opened; and when street-i are opened the railroad must conform to the street grade. Chapter 63, Laws 1853, has no application to such case.

Appeal from order denying motion for injunction.

The city served notice on plaintiff that after an interval of two *382working days the commissioner of city works would begin to fill in over its tracks at certain points where he claimed said tracks were below the lawful grade of the street crossings, and this action was brought to restrain such action.

*E. E.*Sprague, for app’lt; *A. F.*Jenks, for resp’t

Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff is the lessee of the New York & Massachusetts Branch Railroad Company. This company obtained and accepted the consent of the defendant to construct its route through the city of Brooklyn “ so as to conform to the grade of the streets which they cross and run through as laid down in the grade maps of the city.”

The papers show that the city claims the right to have certain of its streets raised át the railroad crossings so as to conform to the old grade which existed when the consent was given. The plaintiff asserts that there were no such maps known as grade maps of the city. I think such a map is proven as to the locality in question. The point is immaterial, as I view the situation of the parties. The agreement to conform to grade of streets applies to all streets which are or may be opened. The intent is that the city shall be superior in forming grades, and that the railroad shall conform to these grades; as all streets in great and rapidly growing cities are projected in advance of an immediate necessity. When these grade maps are laid down the streets are opened in conformity with them; the railroad must conform to the street grade.

Chapter 62, Laws of 1853, has no application to the case under this view of the situation of the parties in respect to the contract which governs them.

The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

D teman and Pratt, JJ., concur.
No. 65979.

#### Border Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/8926 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

In The Matter Of: JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0813

Case No. 2012EA150g

# E C EIVED MAY
- 

## 42015 

## HEARING DOCKET NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT Pursuant to Your Honor's Order ofApril 6, 2015, the parties respectfully wish to advise the Courtthat a settlement has been agreed between the parties. The parties are in the process of finalizing the settlement documents and will advise the Court when the settlement is concluded. In view of the agreed settlement, JetBlue Airways Corporation will not be filing a motion to dismiss by April24, 2015. This notice is filed withthe consent ofcounsel for the FAA, Christian Lewerenz, Esq. Dated: April 22, 2015 Respectfully submitted, By: /s Steven Raffaele HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52"ct Street New York, New York 10019 Tel.: (212) 513-3200 Fax: (212) 385-9010 Email: steven.raffaele@hklaw.com
Attorneys for Respondent JetBlueAirways Corporation By: /s Christian Lewerenz FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Eastern Region, Office ofRegional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718-553-3273 Fax: 718-995-5699 E-Mail: christian.lewerenz@faa.gov Attorneys for the ComplainantAgencyCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day, copies ofthe foregoing Notice ofSettlement were placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) WashingtonD.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 ChristianLewerenz, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration 1AviationPlaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718 553-3273 Fax: 718 995-5699 Email: christian.lewerenz@faa.gov Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 IF FILING BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430



### 2I hereby further certifythat onthis day a copy ofthe foregoing Notice ofSettlement was sent via facsimile to the following: Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536

Date: 

# 1hd71JfS I I

. Catillaz HO LAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52"d Street New York, New York 10019

3
#### Lowenburg *v.*Barr, Appellant.

Argued May 2, 1969.

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

*Daniel B. Pierson, V,*with him *Raspin, Espenshade, Heins, Ershine & Stewart,*for appellant.

*Edward Faehenthal,*with him *William L. O’Hey, Jr.,*and *Henderson, Wetherill & O’Hey,*for appellee.

*638October 9, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement  on Form S-8 for  Manhattan  Scientifics,  Inc. (a  development  stage
enterprise) and  subsidiaries of our report dated April 13, 2004 on our audit of
the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Manhattan  Scientifics,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  for the years ended  December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for the period
from July 31, 1992 (inception)  through December 31, 2003 included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004.




/S/ Eisner LLP
Florham Park, New Jersey
April 12, 2005
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 ChinaCast Education Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Antonio Sena, Chief Financial Officer of ChinaCast Education Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ChinaCast Education Corporation.





Dated May 10, 2011
/s/ Antonio SenaAntonio SenaChief Financial Officer (Principal

Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### Dethlefson Appeal.

*432Argued May 7, 1969.

May 28, 1969:

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

*William J.*O’Brien, for appellants.

*Donald J. Orlowshy,*for appellees.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen,

Appellants, neighboring landowners to the property for which a variance was allowed, did not participate in the proceedings before the Board of Zoning Adjustment of Upper Darby Township or in the appeal to the common pleas court. They, nevertheless, have taken an appeal from the judgment of the lower court reversing the order of the Board. There is mo authority to permit standing to take this appeal and it is therefore quashed.

*433The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code of July 31,1968, P. L. (1969) , §1003, grants a right to appeal to the court of common pleas to “any party” before the Board as well as any officer or agency of the municipality. Not having participated as a party before the Board, appellants must intervene under §1006 of the same act to become a party in the court of common pleas proceedings. These particular appellants were relegated thereunder to the rights of intervention under the Rules of Civil Procedure and, not having filed a petition in accordance therewith, nor having otherwise been permitted to intervene, were not before the lower court. Never having been a party before the lower court, appellants can not now obtain appellate review from this Court. Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, supra, §1012. *Alloy Metal Wire Company, Inc., Appeal,*329 Pa. 429, 432, 198 Atl. 448 (1938).

There is but one way to become a party litigant in a court and that is by appearing in the proceedings. Appearing as a witness is not the participation necessary to establish appellants’ right to review.

Appeal quashed.
AMENDMENT TO
                               THE TALBOTS, INC.
                           SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN

         Effective as of March 15, 2001, The Talbots,  Inc. Supplemental Savings
Plan (the "Plan") is amended as follows:

         1. Section 2.13 of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence
to the end thereof:

                  "Notwithstanding  anything  else herein to
                  the  contrary,  effective  as of March 15,
                  2001,  all Vice  Presidents of the Company
                  will  be  considered  to  be  Participants
                  herein."
**Exhibit 10.5**

 

**TEMPORARY WAIVER OF BENEFITS**

 

**THIS Temporary Waiver of Benefits** (“Waiver”) ismade and entered into by **S. Jeffrey Johnson**,an individual currently residing in Tarrant County, Texas (“Executive”), andCano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) effective as of the 28th day of October, 2008 (the “Waiver EffectiveDate”).

 

**WHEREAS**, Executive and the “Company” entered into thatcertain Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006 and as amended byFirst Amendment to Employment Agreement dated May 31, 2008 (collectively,the “Agreement”);

 

**WHEREAS**, Section 4.(c) and (d) of the Agreement provides foradditional compensation to Executive as follows:

 

(c)           Additional Compensation:  In addition to the base salary described inparagraph 4(a) above, Executive shall receive a vehicle allowance of notless than $850 per month.

 

(d)           Raises:  Executive shall receive increases in the basesalary of at least 7% per year, which increased base salary shall become thebase salary for purposes of this Agreement;

 

**NOW THERFORE**, for and in consideration of Executive’s employmentwith the Company, the benefits provided hereunder and the Employment Agreementand other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of whichare hereby acknowledged and confessed, Executive and the Company agree to thefollowing changes to Section 4. (c) and (d) of the EmploymentAgreement, beginning on the Waiver Effective Date and ending on the one yearanniversary of the Waiver Effective Date:

 

1.             Executive and the Company agreethat Executive will waive and forego the applicable raise that he is otherwiseentitled to receive pursuant to Section 4(d); and

 

**2.            **Executive and the Companyagree that Executive will waive and forego the vehicle allowance that he isotherwise entitled to received pursuant to Section 4(c),.

 

Dated as of the effective date first written above.

 
|   | EXECUTIVE                                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                               |
|   | /s/  S. Jeffrey Johnson                            |
|   | S.  Jeffrey Johnson                                |
|   |                                               |
|   | Cano  Petroleum, Inc.                         |
|   |                                               |
|   | /s/  Benjamin Daitch                               |
|   | Benjamin  Daitch                                   |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----