alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 5, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with NERC 

Attendees: 

See attached. 

Discussion: 

A general discussion was held on NERC’s role in assuring electricity reliability, the RTO’s 

comments on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and how to verify information on 

reliability critical units is especially in unorganized markets (see attached).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
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 October 26, 2010

d1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141500

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141500 COA: 287916 Ingham CC: 07-000938-FC WILLIE DORIAL JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.2**

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIESCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September
30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Bradley C. Anderson, Vice President  Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



|By |  | /s/ Bradley C. Anderson                                    |  | 
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|   |  | Bradley C. Anderson                                       
|   |  | Vice President 
      Finance and Chief Financial Officer | 
|   |  | Amtech
      Systems, Inc.                                
|   |  | Date:
      December 12, 2007
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00369**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  00369\00369_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 00369\00369_Part A.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00369\00369_Part B.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00369\00369_Part C.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00369\00369_Part D.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00369\00369_Part H.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 00369\Supporting Documents\00369_Calc Sheet.doc EPA Technical Review Sheet

00369\Certification Statement_00369.pdf Plant certification statement x 00369\Supporting Documents\00369_Fly_Ash_Handling.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00369\Supporting Documents\00369_WB-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00369\00369_ACAD-lamarpp-working S1-North (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00369\00369_ACAD-lamarpp-working S2-South (1) (2).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 00369\00369_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00369\00369_Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATION     I, Patrick D. O’Brien, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 ofAmerican Oil & Gas, 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:  August 15, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<LEGEND>                      10K/A-MARCH-1998
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1
<CURRENCY>                                   0
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                  67,000
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                       21,130,000
<ALLOWANCES>                           316,000
<INVENTORY>                          8,203,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    31,382,000
<PP&E>                               9,927,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       6,349,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      37,975,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               11,019,000
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                               544,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                          10,064,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        37,975,000
<SALES>                             73,737,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    73,737,000
<CGS>                               67,081,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       72,397,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   1,535,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        809,000
<INCOME-TAX>                           367,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    442,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           442,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .21

</TABLE>
Washoe County Health District 

Public Health Prevent, Promote. ProteCl. 

WASHOE COUNTY DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH 

CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION 

WHEREAS, a need has arisen to prepare revisions to "The Washoe County 

Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard;" 

WHEREAS, this matter has been duly noticed and heard in conformance 

with applicable administrative procedure requirements; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby adopts 

revisions to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard." 

The revision to "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard" 

was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of 

the Washoe County District Board of Health, on the motion of Gustin, seconded by 

Ratti, on the 26th day of June, 2012, by the following vote of the Board: 

AYES: Smith, Furman, Gustin, Hess, Humphreys, Jung, Ratti 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: None 

Joseph P. Iser, MD, DrPH, MSc 

District Health Officer 

A M Smith III 

Chairman 

1001 EAST NINTH STREET I P.O. BOX 11130, RENO, NEVADA 89520 (775) 328-2400 FAX (775) 328-2279 

www.washoecounty.us/health WASHOE COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
----

EXHIBIT 32.a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Pan American Energy Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Scott Houghton, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: April 22, 2004 | /s/ Scott Houghton

_______________________      Scott Houghton, Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 45378.

#### Protest 997961-G of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on*the authority of Abstracts 36724 and 38185 the protest was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Garland Harris, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 737]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered September 23, 1997, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Peuerstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intraop Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JK
Hullett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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.


                                                     /s/   JK Hullett
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                     JK Hullett
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                                     Date:  August 14, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### KNIGHT v. BANES.

March 15, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why money should not he taken out of court.*

A widow whose share has been charged on land taken under proceedings in partition in the Orphan’s Court, the interest of which is made recoverable by-distress, is entitled to receive out of the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale of personal property on the land, one year’s interest, under the act of assembly providing for the payment of one year’s rent out of the proceeds of such sales.

THIS was a *fieri facias,*and under it the defendant’s personal property, to wit, hay and grass, then being on a certain tract of land, were sold, and the proceeds wrere paid into court. The land was owned by the defendant, who took title to it by virtue of certain proceedings in partition in the Orphan’s Court, he accepting the same at the valuation, subject, according to the act of assembly and the decree of the court, to the following provision— “ the share of the widow, Sarah Banes, to remain *charged*on the premises, and the interest thereof to be annually paid her by the said B. R. Banes, and to be recovered by her by distress or otherwise during her natural life.” Interest had accrued at the time of the levy under *the fief facias,*of which Sarah Banes gave due notice to the sheriff, and she then obtained this rule to take out of court the amount of the same. *(Vide Stroud’s Purd. tit. Rent.)*

*Earle,*for the rule.

*Ingraham,*contra.

Per Curiam.

rule must be made absolute. Mrs. Banes’ This annual interest is *charged*on the land and is recoverable by *distress.*This according to the spirit of *Turner v. Hauser,*1 Watts 423, in which the acts of assembly were construed, establishes a general principle which places her in the situation of a landlord, and gives her the same remedies a landlord has against a tenant. Although this exact case is not decided, yet, as one of these remedies, as provided by statute, is the taking out of the proceeds of sheriff’s sales of personal property on the land, rents not exceed*70ing one year, where no distress has been made, but a claim has been made in due time on the sheriff, the applicant here is entitled to the benefit of the operation of the general principle.

Rule absolute.
No. 47744.

#### Protest 979744-G of E. J. Keller Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Green*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 599), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1750 was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20060]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition

Determinations

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 F.R. 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 F.R. 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects on 
the list specified below, to be included in the exhibit, ``Picasso: The 
Engraver, Selections from the Musee Picasso, Paris'' (See list),\1\ 
imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lenders. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the listed exhibit objects 
at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from on or about September 15, 1997, 
through December 21, 1997, is in the national interest. Public notice 
of these determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

    \1\ A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Mr. Paul 
Manning, Assistant General Counsel, at 202/619-5997, and the address 
is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: July 24, 1997.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-20060 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
No. 44300.

#### Protest 580592-G of John Dunn Son Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies,, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166 C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
#### European American Bank, Appellant, v Syosset Autorama, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Embassy Equities Corp. et al., Respondents.

[611 NYS2d 585]

—In an action to recover amounts due under promissory notes and guarantees, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated July 7, 1992, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the respondents Embassy Equities Corp. and Joseph Penny.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the respondents’ affirmative defenses are dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine the amount of the attorneys’ fees owed to the plaintiff under the promissory notes and guarantees which are the subject of the action.

Contrary to the finding of the Supreme Court, there were no triable issues of fact to warrant the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, as the movant, met its initial burden of establishing a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof of the existence of notes, guarantees, and the default in payment *(see, North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Bernstein & Gershman,*201 AD2d 472). The respondents, however, failed to meet their burden of coming forward with evidentiary proof demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. The respondents’ *267contention that the plaintiff perpetrated a fraud against them because the guarantees were signed in blank was waived because the respondents continued to make payments pursuant to the guarantees after discovering the alleged fraud *(see, Gannett Co. v Tester,*177 AD2d 353). In any event, the guarantees are clear and unambiguous, and the respondents are required to show something more than their own unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations of fraud *(see, Kornfeld v NRX Technologies,*62 NY2d 686, 687-688; *State Bank v Patel,*167 AD2d 242, 243; *Columbus Trust Co. v Campolo,*110 AD2d 616, 617, *affd*66 NY2d 701). Additionally, to the extent that the respondents relied upon prior or contemporaneous negotiations with the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the notes and guarantees in order to vary the terms of those documents, such assertions violated the parol evidence rule *(see, W.W.W.*Assocs. *v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157, 163; *Chimart Assocs. v Paul,*66 NY2d 570, 571; *National Bank v ESI Group,*167 AD2d 453, 454).

In light of the fact that the promissory notes and guarantees grant the plaintiff the right to recover attorneys’ fees, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the amount of those fees. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.