alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the quarterly report of SES Solar Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
“Report”), I, Christiane Erne, 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:




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.





Date:
      November 20, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Christiane ErneChristiane
      ErneChief
      Executive Officer
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-622 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EDUCATION 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AZERBAIJAN 

Signed at Baku June 19, 2008 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
AZERBAIJAN 

Education 

 Agreement signed at Baku June 19, 2008; 

 Entered into force June 22, 2010.
1

Ogulei, David

From: Paddock, Nancy <nancy.paddock@veolia.com>

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:43 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: Dennis Warchol

Subject: Title V Request regarding material processing areas and emissions calculations

Hello David, 

Section 2.2(E)(3) of TWI's 2008 Title V permit states that the TANKS program must be used to calculate

emissions from MP1, MP2 and LPR. 

Last year, a consultant reviewed our emissions inventory process. The Surface Evaporation Model from EPA 

Guidance EIIP Volume II:Chapter 8 Section 4.1.4. Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Paint 

and Ink Manufacturing Facilities, March 1998. Equation 8.4-18 was used to calculate emissions from MP1, MP2 and 

LPR. The consultant compiled an average of 5 years of the most recent TRI concentration data to determine the 

concentration of VOC and HAP in the waste, which was then used in the EPA Surface Evaporation Model 

referenced above. 

TANKS is based on routine displacement of liquids. The surface evaporation model is based on the volatility 

and ability of a compound to evaporate from the surface of solids and then be picked up by the air in the 

building and carried to the atmosphere. The evaporation method seems to be more appropriate for MP1, MP2 

and LPR; TWI would like to change section 2.2(E)(3) of the upcoming permit (or the equivalent section

thereof) to indicate the Surface Evaporation Model will be used to calculate emissions from these sources. 

This table compares emissions calculated by both methods for the same calendar year: 

TANKS Model Evaporative 

model 

area TPY lb TPY lb 

MP-1 0.06 117 0.21 424 

MP-2 0.02 44 0.11 212 

LABPACK/REPACK 0.03 68 0.04 85 

I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if you have questions. 

Thank you, 

Nancy 

Nancy Paddock 

Environmental Engineering Specialist 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618.271.2804 (x-115) 

618.271.2128 (fax) 

 
2

Please note that my e-mail address has changed:

Nancy.Paddock@Veolia.com 

 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete it from all 

computers.
Exhibit 32.2

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 StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Floyd F. Chadee, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 4, 2008



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    FLOYD F. CHADEE                                           
|Floyd F. Chadee Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD J.NICHOLAS, )

Plaintiff )

)

) C.A. No. 05-279 Erie

)

ATTY GENERAL OF PA, et al, )

Defendants )

ORDER

This case was transferred to another federal district court by Order of this Court

dated October 6, 2005. However, Petitioner continues to file motions in this closed case.

AND NOW, this 8th day of November, 2006;

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for leave to enforce R.O.R. bail [Document # 15] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for leave to set aside transfer

order [Document # 16] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability

[Document # 19] is DENIED as transfer orders are not appealable.

S/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. MCLAUGHLIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00279-SJM-SPB Document 20 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 1
#### W. H. MATTHEWS CONTRACTING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. M. Athalie RANGE, a single woman, Appellee.

No. 72-1514.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 10, 1973.

DuFresne & Fox, Miami, for appellant.

Ferguson, Lee, Adderly, Culmer & Long, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

*67PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

See Surf Properties v. Markowitz Bros., Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 298; Broderick v. Overhead Door Company of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 117 So.2d 240.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statements of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item. 1 of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,340
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   (344,424)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,340
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,001)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,001)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
258 La. 348

#### EVANGELINE DRILLING COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. Charles H. LAWRENCE, Jr., et al.

No. 51274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 14, 1971.

In re: Evangeline Drilling Company, Inc., et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 243 So.2d 898.

Application denied; on the findings of the court of appeal, the judgment is correct.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 22-97]
    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings and oral hearings for the transaction of Commission business 
and other matters specified, as follows:
    Date and Time: Wednesday, November 5, 1997, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Subject Matter: (1) Oral Hearings and Hearings on the Record on 
Objections to Individual Proposed Decisions on Claims of Holocaust 
Survivors Against Germany; (2) Issuance of Individual Amended Proposed 
Decisions and Final Decisions on Claims of Holocaust Survivors Against 
Germany
    Status: Closed
    All meetings are held at the Foreign claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or 
advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be 
directed to: Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. 
Telephone: (202) 616-6988.

    Dated at Washington, DC October 27, 1997.
Judith H. Lock,
Administrative Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-28851 Filed 10-28-97; 10:41 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
```
@Q 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC 20590
CA JUN 22 2018 =r

US. Department
of Transportation

Federal Highway
Administration

Subject: Dismissal of Complaint DOT# 2018-0235

This letter is to inform you that the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Civil
Rights has determined that it will dismiss the above complaint, which alleged violations that may
be related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and USDOT’s implementation
regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 21 and/or 23 C.F.R. Part 200. To be accepted for investigation, a
complaint must meet the jurisdictional requirements described in FHWA’s Investigations
Manual, which conforms to the U.S. Department of Justice’s procedures and standards for
investigating complaints of discrimination. First, the complaint must be in writing. Second, it
must describe an alleged discriminatory act that, if true, would fall under FHWA’s jurisdiction
and potentially violate FHWA’s nondiscrimination regulations. Finally, it must be filed within
180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory act.

In Reply Refer To: HCR-20
DOT# 2018-0235

After careful consideration, the FHWA has concluded that it must dismiss this complaint. Title
VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and
activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

You alleged that the City of Winfield, Kansas (City) discriminated against you because the City
road construction on 12" Street in Winfield created dust and debris near your home. You further
alleged the dust and debris resulted in harm to your personal property and potentially the health
of you and your family. However, the allegations and facts in your complaint do not meet the
minimum criteria from which FHWA could establish a case of disparate treatment or impact
under Title VI. For these reasons, this complaint will be dismissed by FHWA and closed with no
further action.

If you have any questions, please contact Nichole McWhorter at (202) 366-1396.


Sincerely, _

Yj RAN A ( lo}. S

Title VI Team Leadei
Office of Civil Rights

Ce: Richard E. Backlund, Division Administrator, FHWA Kansas Division Office
Norbert Mufioz, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA Kansas Division Office
Eric G. Deitcher, Civil Rights / Right-of-Way Coordinator, FHWA Kansas Division Office
James Esselman, Senior Attorney-Advisor, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel
Kevin Resler, National Title VI Program Manager, FHWA Office of Civil Rights

Yvette Rivera, Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division, Departmental
Office of Civil Rights

Page 2 of 2
C:\Users\marc.barbeau.ctr\Desktop\Updates\New folder\CFLHDSurveyMonumentRecordG09.doc

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

SURVEY MONUMENT RECORD

Project No.:_________________________________________

Project Name: _____________________________

___________________________________________________

TYPE OF PROJECT: ______________________________

___________________________________________________

SHEET____OF____DRAWING NO.___________________

MONUMENT STAMPED

 ESTABLISHED _____________________________

DATE:

 RECOVERED ______________________________

 □ FHWA

SET BY: □ OTHER FED. AGENCY_________________

 □ A / E FIRM __________________________

By: Date: Agency or Company:

State: Zone: Code:

Horizontal Datum Vertical Datum Units

HORZ: □ NAD 1983 □ LOCAL VERT: □ NAVD 1988 □ LOCAL □ US Foot □ Meter □ Intl. Foot

LATITUDE: ° ' " NORTHING (y) =

LONGITUDE: ° ' " EASTING (x) =

MAPPING ANGLE θ : ° ' " ELEVATION =

SCALE FACTOR: SEA LEVEL FACTOR: COMBINED FACTOR:

OBJECT GRID BEARING GRID DISTANCE

(FEET) (METERS)

DESCRIPTION: □ ALUM.CAP □ BRASS CAP □ COPPERWELD □ OTHER __________________________

SKETCH
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                       LIST OF REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         PERCENTAGE OWNED
                          NAME                            JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION    BY REGISTRANT
                          ----                            ----------------------------   ----------------
<S>                                                       <C>                            <C>
ESS (Far East) Ltd. ....................................           Hong Kong                   100%
ESS Technology International, Inc. .....................         Cayman Islands                100%
OSEE Technology, Inc. ..................................           California                  100%
VideoCore Technology, Inc. .............................           California                  100%
NetRidium...............................................           California                  100%
Platform Technologies, Inc. ............................           California                  100%
ESS International, Inc. ................................         Cayman Island                 100%
Vialta.com (Hawaii), Inc. ..............................             Hawaii                     62.1%
Vialta, Inc. ...........................................           California                   62.1%
Vialta.com International, Inc. .........................         Cayman Island                  62.1%
Vcom Canada Holdings, Inc. .............................           California                   62.1%
Wei Fhi Technology, Inc. ...............................         Cayman Island                 100%
Vsystems International, Inc. ...........................         Cayman Island                 100%
ESS Canada Holdings, Inc. ..............................           California                  100%
</TABLE>
```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 99-1375

                         ARNOLD N. DEARY,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                      CATHERINE C. MITRANO,

                       Defendant, Appellee.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                Stahl and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Arnold N. Deary on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and J. Mitch
MacDonald, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.





December 9, 1999



                                
                                


            Per Curiam.   After carefully considering the briefs
  and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below.  The
  appellee is absolutely immune from suit for claims arising from
  her role in prosecuting the administrative action.  Butz v.
  Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 516-517 (1978); Wang v. New Hampshire
  Board of Registration in Medicine, 55 F.3d 698, 701 (1st Cir.
  1995).
            The district court did not have subject matter
  jurisdiction to review an order of the Federal Aviation
  Administration.  49 U.S.C. � 46110.  Review may only be
  obtained by filing a petition for review in this court within
  sixty days of the order, unless reasonable grounds are given
  for delay.  49 U.S.C. � 46110(a).
            Affirmed.  Loc.R. 27.1.
```
Exhibit 31.1





Certification of the Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, James R. Verrier, certify that:





1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of BorgWarner Inc.;





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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;










Date:  March 30, 2016





/s/ James R. VerrierJames R. VerrierPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Supplement to the currently effective Statements of Additional Information of
each of the Funds listed below:

DWS Balanced Fund
DWS High Income Plus Fund

The following replaces similar disclosure in the "Investment Policies and
Techniques" section of each Fund's Statement of Additional Information:

Securities as a Result of Exchanges or Workouts. Consistent with the Fund's
investment objectives, policies and restrictions, the Fund may hold various
instruments received in an exchange or workout of a distressed security (i.e., a
low-rated debt security that is in default or at risk of becoming in default).
Such instruments may include, but are not limited to, equity securities,
warrants, rights, participation interests in sales of assets and
contingent-interest obligations.

The following replaces similar disclosure in the "Investment Restrictions"
section of the Statement of Additional Information for DWS High Income Plus Fund
only:

As a matter of non-fundamental policy, the Fund may not:

(1) Participate on a joint-and-several basis in any securities trading account.
The "bunching" of orders for the sale or purchase of marketable Fund securities
with other accounts under the management of Deutsche Investment Management
Americas Inc. ("DIMA" or the "Advisor") to save commissions or to average prices
among them is not deemed to result in a securities trading account.

(2) Purchase securities of other US-registered investment companies, except as
permitted by the 1940 Act and the rules, regulations and any applicable
exemptive order issued thereunder.

(3) Purchase any security, including any repurchase agreement maturing in more
than seven days, which is illiquid, if more than 15% of the net assets of the
Fund, taken at market value, would be invested in such securities.

(4) Acquire securities of registered open-end investment companies or registered
unit investment trusts in reliance on Sections 12(d)(1)(F) or 12(d)(1)(G) of the
1940 Act, as amended.






               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference













January 15, 2009