alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
nRECEIVEDJAN312012COMMONWEALTHofVIRGINIA3AP30DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITYStreetaddress.’629EastMainStreet,Richmond,Virginia23219DouglasW.DomenechMailingaddress:P.O.Box1105,Richmond,Virginia23218DavidK.PaylorSecretaryofNaturalResourcesFax(804)698-4500TDD(804)698-4021Directorwww.deq.virginia.gov(804)698-40001.800-592-5482JAN2321112.-E’\jMs.DianaEsher,DirectorAirProtectionDivision(3APOO).U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029Reference:WithdrawaloftheVirginiaPortionof1997PM2.5NAAQSAttainmentSIPRevisionfortheWashingtonDC-MD-VANonattainmentAreaDearMs.Esher:OnApril4,2008,VirginiaofficiallyrequestedapprovalofarevisiontotheCommonwealthofVirginiaStateImplementationPlan(SIP).TherevisiondemonstratedtheimprovementsmadetotheairqualityintheWashingtonDC-MD-VANonattainmentAreaandtheeffortstakentoachievethe1997nationalambientairqualitystandards(NAAQS)forPM2.5by2009.ThisSIPrevisionfortheWashingtonDC-MD-VAareaincluded(i)theattainmentplan,(ii)analysisofreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures,(iii)attainmentdemonstration,(iv)contingencyplansforfailuretoattaintheairqualitystandard,(v)mobilesourcebudgets,and(vi)thebaseyear2002airpollutantemissionsinventory.AirqualityhassignificantlyimprovedintheWashingtonDC-MD-VAarea.OnJanuary12,2009(74FR1146),EPAdeterminedthattheareahadattainedtheNAAQSandissuedacleandatadeterminationforthearea.ThisdeterminationsuspendedtherequirementsfortheCommonwealthtosubmitattainmentdemonstrationsandassociatedreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures,reasonablefurtherprogressplans,contingencymeasures,andotherplanningSIPsrelatedtoattainmentoftheNAAQSinthearea.ThepurposeofthisletteristowithdrawtheseportionsoftheApril4,2008submittal.Specifically,theCommonwealthherebywithdrawsthe(i)attainmentplan,(ii)analysisofreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures,(iii)attainmentMs.DianaEsherPage2demonstration,(iv)contingencypiansforfailuretoattaintheairqualitystandard,and(v)mobilesourcebudgets,allofwhichweresubmittedonApril4,2008.ToensurethatVirginiahasmettherequirementsof§172(c)(3)regardinginventorysubmittals,theCommonwealthisnotrequestingthewithdrawalofthebaseyear2002airpollutantemissionsinventory,whichcomprisedChapter3andAppendixBoftheApril4,2008documentAsarelatedmatter,Virginia,incooperationwiththeDistrictofColumbia,Maryland,andtheMetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments,isdevelopingaredesignationrequestandmaintenanceplanfortheWashingtonDC-MD-VAareawithrespecttothe1997PM2.5NAAQS.Thisrequestandplan,whichwillcontainmobilevehicleemissionsbudgetsdevelopedusingMOVES2O1O,isexpectedtobereadyforfinalsubmittaltoEPAin2012.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinfirmation,pleaseletusknow.Sinerelv.DavidK.PaylorDKP\kgsTEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOOwSIP\NONATTNPLANS\2012\NVAPMw-SIP.DOC
#### C. B. WALLACE v. LaRoyce JONES.

No. 50273.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 3, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1978.

Darden, Sumners, Carter & Trout, Lester F. Sumners, New Albany, for appellant.

Price & Krohn, Robert G. Krohn, J. B. Mitchell, Corinth, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2019162EN.01002701.xml

| 19.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 162/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/27

---

Corrigendum to Regulation No 83 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements [2019/253]

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 45 of 15 February 2019
  )

On page 2, point 1.1:

for:

‘This Regulation shall apply to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg (1).

At the manufacturer's request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to special purpose vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 regardless of their reference mass. The manufacturer shall demonstrate to the Type Approval Authority which granted the type approval that the vehicle in question is a special purpose vehicle.’,

read:

‘This Regulation shall apply to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg (1).

At the manufacturer's request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to M1, M2, N1 and N2 vehicles with a reference mass not exceeding 2 840 kg and which meet the conditions laid down in this Regulation.

At the manufacturer's request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to special purpose vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 regardless of their reference mass. The manufacturer shall demonstrate to the Type Approval Authority which granted the type approval that the vehicle in question is a special purpose vehicle.’.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN KENNETH JOHNSON, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-0837

:

vs. : (Complaint Filed 04/27/05) 

:

: (Judge Muir)

DENNIS WIEDERHOLD, et al., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

August 16, 2005 

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff, an inmate presently confined in the

Schuylkill County Prison, Pottsville, Pennsylvania, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Named as defendants are Pottsville Police Officers

Wiederhold and Yodder, and Schuylkill County Prison officer

Lt. Rizzardi. Johnson alleges that officers Wiederhold and

Yodder subjected him to excessive force during his arrest

and that Lt. Rizzardi subjected him to verbal harassment

upon his entry into the Schuylkill County Prison. (Doc. No.

1). Presently before the court are plaintiff’s motions to

amend his complaint to add his wife, Grace A. Kolvites, as

an additional defendant. (Doc. Nos. 18, 26). For the

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 28 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 3
2

reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied. 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides in part

that "[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served . . . ." This court initially notes that Rule 15 has

a liberal amendment of complaint policy. Foman vs. Davis,

371 U.S. 178, 181-82 (1962). 

In order to prevail on a claim made under 1983, the

plaintiff must satisfy two criteria: (1) that some person

has deprived him or her of a federal right, and (2) that the

person who caused the deprivation acted under color of state

or territorial law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978). In

this case, plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add his

wife, Grace A. Kolvites, as a defendant. This defendant,

however, is a private individual and, as such, cannot have

liability imposed against her in a § 1983 action, because

she does not act under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)(holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does

not create a private cause of action against those who do

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 28 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 3
not "under color of state law" violate the federally

protected rights of others). While it is well-recognized

that liberal standards are to be applied to pro se

litigants, Haines vs. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the

plaintiff's motions are legally without merit and will be

denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to amend

his complaint to include an additional defendant (Doc. Nos.

18, 26) are DENIED. 

 s/Malcolm Muir

 

MUIR

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 28 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1    Certification Pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350     I, Gunther Than, President and Treasurer of View Systems, Inc. (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:  1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (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 Corporation.


|                        |                    |                                                                                                                      | 
|----------------------- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                        |                    |                                                                                                                      | 
|                        | View Systems, Inc. |                                                                                                                     
|                        |                    |                                                                                                                      | 
|Date: November 12, 2010 | By:                | /s/ Gunther Than                                                                                                     | 
|                        |                    | Gunther Than                                                                                                         | 
|                        |                    | President and Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                        |                    |                                                                                                                      |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl WASHINGTON.

No. 61697.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

John Samaha, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOE ANTONY CABRAL,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00048-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180D01243)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that the order denying Appellant’s motion to recuse 

the trial judge is not subject to an interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

This Court’s jurisdiction is derived from the Texas Constitution which provides that the 

courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction “under such restrictions and regulations as may be 

prescribed by law.” TEX.CONST. art. V, § 6(a). Consequently, a party may appeal only that which 

the Legislature has authorized. Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 941 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). 

Article 44.02 provides that a defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the 

rules hereinafter prescribed. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.02. This statutory right of appeal 

has been interpreted as allowing appeal from a final judgment of conviction. See State v. Sellers, 
- 2 -

790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990); Ex parte Culver, 932 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex.App.-

-El Paso 1996, pet. ref’d). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory 

orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 

792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Culver, 932 S.W.2d at 210. 

Rule 18a(j) expressly provides: “An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed 

only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” TEX.R.CIV.P. 18a(j)(1)(A); see 

Leija v. State, 456 S.W.3d 157, 158 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015)(“When a motion to recuse a trial judge 

is denied, review occurs only after final judgment in the trial court.”). The Clerk of the Court sent 

Appellant notice that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there 

is no final judgment or appealable order. Appellant’s response does not address the issue of 

jurisdiction. Citing Leija, the State argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to review the 

interlocutory order denying Appellant’s motion to recuse. We agree with the State. Accordingly, 

we dismiss the attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

February 20, 2019

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
# Transportation employees receive award at Defense conference

/ Published Dec. 7, 2018
WASHINGTON, D.C., 
Two DLA Distribution transportation employees were honored at the 2018 National Defense Transportation Association-United States Transportation Command Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

James McHale, DLA Distribution traffic management specialist, and Sherri Troup, former DLA Distribution Transportation Operations chief, received the NDTA Strategic Distribution Award for 2018 for their contributions to the Trans-Arabian Network from USTRANSCOM deputy commander Marine Lt. Gen. John J. Broadmeadow.

The TAN was created in partnership with the United States Transportation Command in order to schedule strategic sustainment material through the emerging Trans-Arabian Network routes, supporting United States Central Command’s plans to improve and create a robust ground network throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

The yearly conference serves to encourage discussions on how USTRANSCOM, government agencies, and commercial industry partners can work together to benefit national security and defense through knowledge sharing in logistics, transportation and passenger travel services.
#### Thomas FIERSTOS, Appellant, v. Walter S. CULLUM, Joan C. Cullum, his wife, and the Continental Insurance Co., Appellees.

No. 77-42.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1977.

Ronald H. Schnell, of Carr & Schnell, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Mark E. Hungate and James B. Thompson, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villa-real *&*Banker, St. Petersburg, for appel-lees.

OTT, Judge.

This was a negligence action by a tenant against his landlord arising out of the alleged failure of the landlord to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and repair of a common stairway.

The case went to the jury on instructions as to the standard of care, comparative negligence and special verdict that were most favorable to the defendant.

The jury returned its special verdict finding the landlord solely negligent and awarding the tenant $7,000 in damages.

Upon the landlord’s motion the trial court entered judgment for the landlord, notwithstanding the jury verdict.

The evidence in the case was in direct-conflict. Plaintiff/appellant testified that he had fallen while descending an interior stairway in the apartment building in which he lived; that he caught his foot on a loose antenna wire — black in color — which ran just under the lip of a step; that the stairway was reasonably dark because the only light in the vicinity was blocked by a protruding porch; that he had previously noted the loose wire, reattached it under the stair lip, informed the landlord thereof and requested that he correct the condition.

The landlord, on the other hand, testified that he inspected the premises daily and had never seen any such wire; flatly denied *371that the appellant had ever complained about any loose wire running across the stairway or requested any repair.

There was competent evidence before the jury which it was their prerogative to believe. Credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given the evidence and whether the actions of the parties were reasonable were all distinctly within the province of the jury. Under the circumstances the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury. *See Rosenfelder v. Huttoe,*66 So.2d 226 (Fla.1953); *Dixon v. Thompson,*217 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).

We therefore reverse the trial court, order the judgment set aside and direct that judgment be entered on the jury verdict. Having so determined it is unnecessary to consider the remaining point on this appeal.

Reversed and Remanded.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas L. PHILLIPS.

No. 60111.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 2, 1977.

In re: Thomas L. Phillips applying for writ of mandamus.

Writ granted in part. Relator’s application must first be filed in the trial court; accordingly, relator’s application will be transferred to the trial judge to act upon said application.
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 on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the  "Partnership")  for the years ended March 31, 2007,
2006, 2005, and 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,
Jr.,  President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  (a) such  provisions  require  certain  audit  reports  of Local
          Limited Partnership  financial statements to refer to the standards of
          the Public  Company  Accounting  Oversight  Board;  and (b) the annual
          report  covers the six year period ended March 31, 2007,  and includes
          disclosure  required  in the annual  reports for the years ended March
          31, 2006, 2005, and 2004 in addition to the year ended March 31, 2007;
          and

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




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
October 5, 2009
----

----

| 1.     | The      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the LP. |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 13, 2009                                                                                                     |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                             |   |   |
| /s/      Mark Gatto                                                                                                              |   |   |
| Mark      Gatto                                                                                                                  |   |   |
| Co-Chief      Executive Officer and Co-PresidentICON      Capital Corp.General      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight BL.P. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,314,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,303,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,314,503
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                82,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 82,703
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,703
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,703
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75
        

</TABLE>
sbid_ex102.htm



EXHIBIT 10.2


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1 to


 





EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT dated as of November 16, 2015 (the “Amendment”) by and between Dick Kooij (the “Executive”) and Symbid Corp. (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company entered into an Employment Services Agreement with the Executive as of November 1, 2015 (the “Employment Services Agreement”) pursuant to which Executive serves as the Company’s Senior Financial Manager; and


 


WHEREAS, Executive and the Company wish to modify certain arrangements under the Employment Services Agreement in the manner set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


 





1. Schedule A, Item 2 of the Employment Services Agreement is amended to read as follows:


 





8.  Employment




 



	
a.  

	
Title: CFO and Treasurer







 



	
b.  

	
Executive Duties:







 



	
●   

	
Financial management







 



	
●   

	
SEC reporting







 



	
●   

	
Management reporting







 



	
●   

	
Risk management







 



	
●   

	
Internal Control/Compliance







 



4. No Further Changes.  All other terms of the Employment Services Agreement shall continue with full force and effect.


 









[The next page is the signature page]


 










  





1











  






 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.


 




	EXECUTIVE:	 	 	SYMBID CORP.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s /Dick Kooij 

	 	 	
/s/ Korstiaan Zandvliet

	 
	
Name: Dick Kooij 

	 	 	
Name: Korstiaan Zandvliet

	 
	
Title: Chief Executive Officer

	 	 	
 

	 















 






 


 


2