alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541‐2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:49 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Cc: Clark, Adam

Subject: WY: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

FYI ‐ WY

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:26 AM

To: Steve Dietrich

Cc: Monica Morales

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Steve

This email is a follow‐up my update on the SAD call about the startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) SIP

call.  Wyoming will not be included in the SIP call as we have already addressed the SSM provisions that EPA was

petitioned on.

The information below is from headquarters.

The EPA Administrator signed a final action today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources

at all times, including during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).  

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated

in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, the EPA has

revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.
2

Wyoming is not among those for which the EPA is issuing a SIP call to make changes to their SIPs because the EPA has

determined that the SIP provisions cited in the petition for your state are consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s

current SSM Policy to the extent they are still part of your EPA–approved SIP.  

For more detail on the agency’s final action, we have posted a pre‐publication version of the action on our website

at:  http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with you to ensure that any future revisions to your SIP are consistent

with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s SSM policy.  

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416
Information Only 
Information Only
33980.

#### WILLIAMSON v. WILLIAMSON.

Submitted September 1, 1978

Decided September 28, 1978.

*Thomas F. Jarriel,*for appellant.

*I. Burl Davis,*for appellee.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

Appellant was held in contempt for failure to comply with a provision of a divorce decree which he contends is a property settlement. He argues that the provision merely declares the rights of the parties and since the decree did not command performance he cannot be held in contempt. We affirm. *Duke v. Smith,*242 Ga. 207 (1978). We find no merit in the remaining enumerations of error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------


               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                         COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


         I, Michael D. Davidson, am Chief Financial Officer of Competitive
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company").

         This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection
with the filing of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended January 31, 2005 (the "Report").

         I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

         1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: March 17, 2005                            /s/ Michael D. Davidson
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Michael D. Davidson
                                                Chief Financial Officer of
                                                Competitive Technologies, Inc.
EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive 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 Annual Report of Desert Sun Mining Corporation, a company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the transitional period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Bruce Humphrey, President/CEO/Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.



Bruce Humphrey_________

Chief Executive Officer





Date: November 10, 2004
#### Clarence TELFAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-0716.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1998.

Clarence Telfair, Appellant, pro se.

Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Johnson v. Singletary,*695 So.2d 263, 265 (Fla.1996); *Parker v. State,*603 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

BARFIELD, C.J., DAVIS, J., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002I, David H. Shipman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of O2Diesel Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;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 of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003)];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented 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(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’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 have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:December 5, 2005/s/ David H. Shipman
# Patent

## Title
Certain 8-(2-tetrahydrofuryl)octanoic acid compounds with prostaglandin

## Abstract

This is a division of application Ser. No. 324,050, filed Jan. 19, 1973 now U.S. Pat. No. 3,940,426.

## Background
The claimed invention is 2,3,3',4'-biphenyltetracarboxylic acid dianhydride.

The synthesis and utility of this compound are described in applicants U.S. Pat. No. 3,940,426, issued Feb. 24, 1976 (Class 260, subclass 346.3), which matured from application Ser. No. 324,050, of which this application is a division. See Example 23 of said U.S. patent for a method of synthesis and see column 4, lines 34-38 of said U.S. patent for the utility of this compound.

## Claims

1. 2,3,3',4'-Biphenyltetracarboxylic acid dianhydride.
99-0576 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Lawrence EVERAGE, Jr. and Richard Daggs v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE through the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Richard J. Pennington, Superintendent of Police, Christopher H. Harris, and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation.

No. 99-C-0576.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Everage, Lawrence Jr. Et Al; Daggs, Richard; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Orleans Civil District Court Div. “J” Number 97-8092; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 98CA-0923

Denied.

VICTORY, J. not on panel.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6708
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR ALLEN HALEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-906-2-18) Submitted: August 27, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Allen Haley, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Allen Haley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00452-CR

Dimetric Dashon GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR9594

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2015

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Appellant Dimetric Dashon Gonzalez pled guilty to 

Assault-Family-2nd Offense (Repeater) and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and a fine 

of $2,000 in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On June 25, 2015, the trial 

court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Gonzalez filed a

pro se notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to 
04-15-00452-CR

- 2 -

this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). 

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the 

punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor 

and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed 

and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. 

See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a pleabargain case and that Gonzalez does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” 

Id. 25.2(d). 

We, therefore, warned Gonzalez that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he 

had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; 

Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial 

court certification has been filed. Instead, Gonzalez’s appointed counsel filed a letter concluding 

that Gonzalez does not have a right to appeal in this case. 

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Case No. 8,114.

#### LATIMER v. MOORE et al.

[4 McLean, 110.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1846.

Annuity — Duty of Tenant fou Life as to In-OÜMBIÍANOES — MORTGAGES—RECEIVER to Pat Charges.

1. A personal decree will be made against the heir for an annuity charged on the land.

2. A tenant for life is bound to keep down the interest of incumbrances, although the whole of the rents are exhausted by it.

[Cited in Murdock v. Ford, 17 Ind. 55.]

*11873. A court will sometimes appoint a receiver to pay the annual charges on the mortgaged premises.

4. The above principles will be applied, if the land under incumbrances shall not sell for the debt secured by the mortgage.

[This was an action on a mortgaged debt b'y P. Latimer against Moore, Matteson, and Barnum.]

Mr. Seaman, for complainant.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit Justice.]

OPINION OP

THE COURT.

This bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage given on certain lots in the village of Cassopolis, in 1 the county of Cass, Michigan, to secure the payment of two promissory notes, each for the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars. In the bill, Barnum is represented to be in possession of the premises, under some claim, as purchaser or otherwise, the particulars of which are unknown to the complainant, except that the interest or title claimed, is derived from Wood and Matte-son, and that is subject to the mortgage. And the bill prays the defendants may answer, etc. And that an account may be taken, and that so much of the mortgaged premises may be sold as shall be necessary to pay the principal and interest due, and the costs, etc. Barnum having had possession of the premises, the complainant contends that he must account for the rents and profits. Lands sold to A. subject to an annuity of £15 a year, to the sister of the vendor. The lands are afterwards mortgaged and otherwise charged by A., and thus ■charged descend to his heir at law, a court ■of equity will make a personal decree ■against the heir for the arrears and growing payments of this annuity. Champernowne v. Hillersdon, 4 Brown, P. C. 330; 1 Mer. 240; 1 Chit. Eq. Cas. 690. A tenant for life is bound to keep down the interest of in-cumbrances, although the whole of the rents ■are exhausted by it. Revel v. Watkinson, 1 Ves. Sr. 93; 1 Chit. Eq. Cas. 380. The heir at law can oblige tenant by the courtesy, to keep down the interest, as any other tenant. Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 606, 1 Chit. 380. The court will sometimes appoint a receiver to receive the rents of the mortgaged premises, who will be required to pay the interest and the annual charges upon the land, Story, Eq. Jur. § 838; 5 Madd. 422; 6 Madd. 11; 3 Johns. Ch. 259. The mortgage debt always forms a part of the purchase money, on the purchase of the mortgagor’s equity of redemption. 3 Johns. Ch. 261. The above principles may be applied, if it shall be found that the mortgaged premises are in-•sufiicient to pay the sum due, etc. The court having referred, etc., to a master, whose report is before us, will decree a foreclosure .•and sale of the premises.
Before the First Division,

January 16, 1939

No. 40431.

#### Petition 5708-R of Harris Goldman Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

While it appeared that the petitioner was tardy in taking-steps to satisfy himself that his entered value was correct, it was apparent that he did as much as he was able to do toward that end and that there was an absence of intention to defraud the United States of any of its lawfuhrevenues. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2016462EN.01001501.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN-čerpací stanice)

(Case T-123/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UNICORN-čerpací stanice - Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 462/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2015 (Case R 153/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Unicorn and Mercilink Equipment Leasing.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unicorn a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unicorn a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

---
No. 96-5625.

#### Johnson *v.*Shillinger, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the First Division,

January 21, 1941

No. 45240.

#### Protests 959988-G, etc., of Bellows & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the bottles in question were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraphs 218 (e) and 810 as claimed.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Southern de México, S.A.
de C.V. (the registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
    /s/ Michael W. UpchurchMichael W. UpchurchChief Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00493

- CR

Jose Manuel Avendano Quin a/k/a Jose Quin

v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR

- 0599

- 21

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPE ALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 7, 2023
No. 46393.

#### Protests 793822-G, etc., of Heemsoth & Basse, Inc., et al. (New York).

*280Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### From: Sent: Russ Maguire <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:46 PM To: 

### Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:
FYI

----- Forwarded Message----- Brandon H. Moss Mark P. Ryan Fwd: Charges Against BEH Follow up Flagged

From: "Kevin Grasso" <kgrasso@norwoodma.gov> To: "Russ Maguire" <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> Cc: "Mark Raymond" <mraymond@norwoodnia.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May6, 2015 1:36:54 PM Subject: Airport Russ and Mark, I have confirmed that Christopher Donovan and Robert Silva have had criminal complaints filed at Dedham District Court. They are both being charged with Mass. General Law 266-127A Destruction of Property over $250. We are waiting forthe Courtto give us a hearing date. The Officer did agreatjob investigatingthis and filed avery good report. I will keep you posted on any dates. Kevin 

### JGrasso Administrative Assistant tothe Chief of Police Norwood Police Department 137 Nahatan Street Norwood, Ma 02062 781-440-5151 The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, may be protected bythe attorney-client orotherapplicable privileges, or may constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed onlyto the designated recipient(s) named above. Ifyou are not an intended recipient ofthis message, please notifythe sender by replying to this message and then delete all copies ofitfrom your computer system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction ofthis message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Russ Maguire, Manager Norwood MemorialAirport

1