alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 16.1


KPMG
  2500 Ruan Center                                        Telephone 515 288 7465
  666 Grand Avenue                                        Fax 515 280 3202
  Des Moines, IA 50309


January 17, 2003


Office of the Chief Accountant
SECPS Letter Files
Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 9-5
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously  principal  accountants for SNAP2  Corporation and, under the
date of December  14, 2001,  we reported on the  financial  statements  of SNAP2
Corporation  as of and for the years  ended  September  30,  2001 and  2000.  On
January 9, 2003, we received  notification  from SNAP2  Corporation  that we had
been  terminated  as  principal  accountants.  We have read SNAP2  Corporation's
statements included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated December 13, 2002, and we
agree with such  statements,  except that we were notified of our termination on
January 9, 2003, and had not been furnished with a copy of the draft Form 8-K by
SNAP2  Corporation.  Also,  we are not in a position to agree or  disagree  with
SNAP2 Corporation's  statements  regarding the actions of its board of directors
on December 4, 2002 and its statement that the Company did not consult with S.W.
Hatfield,  CPA  regarding  any of the  matters  or  events  set  forth  in  Item
304(a)(2)(i)  and (ii) of  Regulation  S-K. In  addition,  KPMG LLP is a limited
liability partnership.


Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP
<PAGE>
KPMG
  2500 Ruan Center                                        Telephone 515 288 7465
  666 Grand Avenue                                        Fax 515 280 3202
  Des Moines, IA 50309


January 17, 2003


Mr. Dean R. Grewell III
President
SNAP2 Corporation
10641 Justin Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322


Dear Mr. Grewell:

This  is  to  confirm  that  the  client-auditor   relationship   between  SNAP2
Corporation (Commission File Number 0-26839) and KPMG LLP has ceased.


Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP


cc: Chief Accountant
    Securities and Exchange Commission
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

p0129 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139870 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139870 

 COA: 293113 

Genesee CC: 08-022946-FC 

DAVID STANLEY STEWART, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 30, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28046]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. MT98-3-000]


K N Wattenberg Transmission Limited Liability Co.; Notice of 
Tariff Filing

October 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 14, 1997, K N Wattenberg Transmission 
L.L.C. (K N Wattenberg) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 63, to be 
effective November 14, 1997.
    K N Wattenberg states that these tariff sheets are being filed 
pursuant to section 154.204 of the Commission's regulations. K N 
Wattenberg is submitting for filing and acceptance the above revised 
tariff sheet(s) and other information as required by the Commission's 
Orders issued on December 24, 1996 and September 15, 1997, in Docket 
No. MG96-14 et. al.
    K N Wattenberg states that copies of the filing were served upon K 
N Wattenberg's jurisdictional customers, interested public bodies and 
all parties to the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). All such motions or protest must be filed in accordance with 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All such protests 
filed with the Commission will be considered by it in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a petition to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28046 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
International Fuel Technology, Inc. 10-Q




EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATIONS
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 
 TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In conjunction with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
 
 I, Jonathan R. Burst, the Chief Executive 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, to the best of 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 and results of operations of the Company.
  November 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Jonathan R. BurstJonathan R. BurstChief Executive Officer
Word or Phrase Acronyms, Synonyms, and Related Words

Bicycle Safety Audit BSA

Crash Modification Factors CMF

Fatal Accident Reporting System FARS

Highway Safety Manual HSM

Road Safety Audit RSA

Safe Routes to School SRTS

Bicycle boulevard Neighborhood Greenway

Bike box Advanced stop bar

Bike lane Bicycle Lane

Crossing Intersection; Crosswalk

High intensity activated crosswalk HAWK; Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Pedestrian hybrid beacon PHB

Rapid rectangular flashing beacon RRFB; Hybrid Beacon

Separated bike lane Protected bike lane; cycle track

Shared lane marking Sharrow

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials AASHTO

Federal Highway Administration FHWA

Institute of Transportation Enginerers ITE

National Association of City Transportation Officials NACTO

National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP

Transit Cooperative Research Program TCRP

Transportation Research Board TRB

Bike Bicycle

Biking Bicycling

Crashes Crash type

Activities / Programs/ Resources

Topics

Organizations

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: Common Acronyms, Synonyms, and Related Words

A Resource for Users of the FHWA Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Information Search Tool

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/safety_info_search/

Last Updated:  08/03/17

Facilities
NO. 07-03-0426-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 10, 2003

______________________________

IN RE BILLY L. HUGHES, RELATOR

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By this original proceeding, relator Billy L. Hughes, an inmate proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Lee Waters,

Presiding Judge of the 223rd District Court of Gray County, to rule on his motion for new

trial and motion to modify and amend his divorce decree in cause number 30598. For the

following reasons, relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus must be denied.

Relator must satisfy three requirements to establish his entitlement to the issuance

of a writ of mandamus, to-wit: (1) a legal duty to perform; (2) a demand for performance;

and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979). When a

motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and ruling
2

upon the motion is a ministerial act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158

(Tex. 1992). However, the trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform that

ministerial duty. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.App.–San

Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). Whether a reasonable period of time has lapsed is

dependent on the circumstances of each case. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426,

(Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Other factors are influential such

as the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act, the state of its

docket, and other judicial and administrative duties which must be addressed. In re

Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Further, the

party requesting relief must provide a sufficient record to establish his entitlement to

mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); see also In re

Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). By his petition,

relator alleges he filed his motions on April 21, 2003, and on August 11, 2003, he wrote

the District Clerk inquiring about the status of the motions. He further asserts that on

August 18, 2003, he was notified by the District Clerk that the trial court had not ruled on

his motions. 

Relator’s petition is not accompanied by certified or sworn copies of the motions he

filed nor by any copies of correspondence with the District Clerk. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.3(j)(1)(A) & (j)(2). Relator has not met his burden to provide a sufficient record

demonstrating that properly filed motions have awaited disposition for an unreasonable
3

length of time. Also, we decline to hold that the trial court’s failure to rule on relator’s

motions within four months of being filed constitutes an unreasonable delay. Moreover,

relator has not established he demanded performance nor the trial court’s refusal to act.

Stoner, 586 S.W.2d at 846.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
Pecos Road Improvement Project

A Complete Streets Transformation
Pecos Road 

Project Location
Pecos Road 

Project Location

51st Ave.

Pecos Road
Justification

• Existing Road serves a Number of Government Services

• No Sidewalks or Street Lights

• No Parallel Road Drainage

• Existing large Dip Crossing that closed road when it rained

• Bus Service with no Bus Pull Outs
Project Coordination:

• Met with District

• Met with all the Entities along Pecos Road 

• Coordinated with Phoenix and Gila River Transit Systems

• Met with the Utility Companies

• Corp. of Engineers
What we learned:

• Everyone wanted Street Lights and a Sidewalk

• Existing Utilities Everywhere

• Elder Housing needed Improved Access and Drainage 

Improvements

• Boys and Girls Club had serious Drainage Issues that 

affect Pecos Road

• Need for Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) 

• 404 Permit Required for New Box Culvert
Challenges:

• Needed to keep road open at all times

• Utility Companies, as-builds, and blue staking did not always accurately 

identify where utilities were located

• To figure out the best way to build the large box culvert structure

• Accommodating a new K thru 8 school at the 11th hour before construction

• Meeting MAG funding grant expenditure deadline for the bus pull outs
Before:
After:











Lesson Learned:

• Always build in some contingency into your budget if you are dealing 

with multiple underground utilities

• Look at what is happening with Construction Pricing in your area

• Make sure your inspectors document everything, including pictures 

when things turn out to not be where existing plans said they were

• Always remember, you and your contractor are a team
Questions?

Total Project Cost:

The total cost of the Pecos Road Improvement Project 

including the grants funds we received from our MPO, inhouse salaries and construction costs was $3,321,678.32
RequesƟng IniƟal InspecƟon of Tribally Owned Bridges Flowchart 

No 

Tribe IdenƟfies Bridge 

Is the bridge opening 20’ 

or more? 

BIA Region submits the request form to the 

BIA TTP Bridge Program Manager for 

 inspecƟon by the consultant or in‐house BIA 

Regional InspecƟon Team 

Yes 

Is the bridge open to the 

public? 

Yes 

No 

Tribe coordinates with the 

FHWA TC or BIA Region to 

fill out the tribal bridge 

inspecƟon request form 

FHWA Tribes BIA Tribes 

FHWA TC submits the inspecƟon request 

form to the FHWA TTP Bridge Program 

Manager (PM) 

PM submits the request form to EFL Bridge 

for inspecƟon 

Once inspected by EFL Bridge, a copy of the 

inspecƟon report and NBI data file (432 text 

file) is provided to FHWA TTP Bridge PM and 

to the EFL Bridge Management Team for 2nd 

level review. 

PM submits the request form to the BI‐

ADOT’s consultant or in‐house BIA Regional 

InspecƟon Team 

Once inspected, a copy of the inspecƟon 

report and NBI data file (432 text file) is pro‐

vided to the EFL Bridge Management Team 

for 2nd level review. 

RouƟne inspecƟons are performed at 

regular intervals not to exceed (NTE) 24 

months 

No further acƟon required 

No further acƟon required 

Once approved, the NBI data file is 

submiƩed to FHWA HQ Office of Bridges and 

Structures for recordaƟon in the FHWA NBI 

No Road idenƟfied in NTTFI 

and coded as Tribally 

owned 

No further acƟon required 

Yes
**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**

The undersigned, John Veltheer, the President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of The Electric Network.com, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Electric Network.com, Inc. for the three month period ended March 31, 2006 (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 Electric Network.com, Inc.

Dated May 11, 2006.

/s/ John Veltheer

John Veltheer,

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
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 MedCom USA, INC., (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bill Williams, Chief
Executive 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 to
the best of my knowledge:

          (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.

                                MEDCOM USA, INC.
                              By /s/ W.P. Williams
                                 -----------------
                            Chairman, President, CEO
                   (Sole executive officer of the registrant)
                               September 28, 2005
#### Milly A. BLANTON, Appellant, v. Frank S. BLANTON, Appellee.

No. 71-89.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 24, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 9893.

#### The National Supply Co. et al. *v.*Snyder et al.

(Decided January 29, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hancock County.

*Messrs. Phelps & .David*and *Messrs. Taber & Clapp,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Cole, Williams & Cole*and *Mr. C. W. Bish,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Barbara Jenkins HARMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11227.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 27, 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 26,1969.

Donald R. Miller, Shreveport, for appellant.

Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons, Shreveport, for Commercial Standard Ins. Co., H & H Contracting Co., Inc., and Willie H. Cooper, defendants-appellees.

Before AYRES, BOLIN, and PRICE, JJ-

AYRES, Judge.

The fixing of the amount and the assessment as costs of expert-witness fees in a matter previously determined is the object of this proceeding by rule. Fees were sought for plaintiff’s physician in the sum of $150 and for a photographer in the sum of $100. The demand as to the latter was rejected. The fee of the former was fixed at $50. From the judgment, plaintiff appealed.

The record contains no note of evidence nor stipulation or recital of facts by either litigants or counsel. The record, moreover, contains no statement by the trial court as to its findings of fact and reasons for judgment. No showing is made even as to the nature of the case. The record reflects no error apparent on its face.

In matters such as this, the presumption of law is that the trial court acted on sufficient evidence properly received until the contrary is clearly shown. Gibbons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 130 La. 671, 58 So. 505 (1912); Broadway v. Wester, 193 So.2d 855 (La.App., 3d Cir.1967 — writ refused); Cryer v. Ring, 149 So.2d 451 (La.App., 3d Cir.1963 — cert. refused); Cush v. Griffin, 95 So.2d 860 (La.App., 2d Cir.1957). Moreover, a rule well recognized in the jurisprudence is that the fixing of expert-witness fees is largely within the discretion of the trial court and, in the absence of an abuse of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed. Orleans Parish School Board v. Bond, 200 So.2d 411 (La.App., 4th Cir.1967); Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc. v. Williams, 181 So.2d 844 (La.App., 2d Cir.1965); White v. American Employers’ Insurance Company, 179 So.2d 542 (La.App., 3d Cir. *5121965); Bryant v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 158 So.2d 263 (La.App., 4th Cir.1963); State through Dept, of Highways v. Riley, 143 So.2d 396 (La.App., 3d Cir.1962 — cert. denied).

Under the showing made, the judgment must be presumed correct. An abuse of the discretion vested in the trial court in matters of this kind has not been shown.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed at plaintiff-appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.
#### Richard E. STONE v. SHERIFF OF GRENADA COUNTY, Mississippi.

No. 50492.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 10, 1978.

Parker, Averill, Funderburk & Butts, David 0. Butts, Paul S. Funderburk, Tupe-lo, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

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

AFFIRMED.
#### Evelyn Mignonette WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Henry John WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellee.

No. P-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 5, 1971.

T. David Burns, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is remanded to the trial court for the purpose of holding a hearing, of which due notice shall be given to both parties, to determine the future custody of the minor children. The order resolving said custody should specify whether it is permanent or temporary and whether the minor children can be taken outside the State of Florida.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, Florida, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Herbert J. HUTCHINGS and Rose Hutchings his wife, Francis A. Dickinson and Alma Dickinson, his wife, and Joel R. Mish and Judith Mish, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1971.

Charles A. Finkel and E. T. Hunter, Asst. City Attys., Hollywood, for appellant.

George B. Hardie, Jr., South Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the City of Hollywood from a final judgment holding unconstitutional a zoning ordinance as it applies to the real property of the appellees. From our review of the record on appeal, we are satisfied the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and its conclusions in accordance with law. We affirm on the authority of Kugel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 282 and Manilow v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 589. See also Quattrocchi v. MacVicar, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 873 and Burritt v. Harris, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 820.

As an additional ground for affirmance we are compelled to point out that the appellant has failed to include in the record on appeal numerous items of documentary evidence which from the transcript appear to have been material to the trial court’s decision. - Hence error has not been made to appear.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### ATLANTIC CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation, Appellant, v. BISCAYNE FINANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Daniel Levine, Thelma Levine, Allen Goldberg, Ben Levine, Helen Levine, Manning Taylor and Nancy Taylor, Appellees.

No. 70-278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 29, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1970.

Michael H. Salmon and Ely R. Katz, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Alfred Aronovitz, of Aronovitz, Arono-vitz & Haverfield, Miami, for appellee-Biscayne Finance Company.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of R. K. Cooper Construction Company v. Fulton, Fla.1968, 216 So.2d 11.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.