alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 5, 2002 

 HSA-10/B106 

Mr. Rich Peter, Chief 

Roadside Safety Technology Branch 

Materials Engineering and Testing Services 

5600 Folsom Boulevard 

Sacramento, CA 95819-4612 

Dear Mr. Peter: 

In your July 9 letter to Mr. Frederick G. Wright, former Program Manager for 

FHWA’s Office of Highway Safety, you requested formal acceptance of a Thriebeam bridge rail transition design that you developed and tested to NCHRP Report 

350 test level 4 (TL-4). You noted in your letter that local FHWA acceptance had 

been granted and included copies of your May 2002 test report “Vehicular Crash 

Tests of a Nested Thrie-Beam Transition Barrier and crash test videotapes. 

The final design consisted of a standard 4130-mm long section of nested Thrie-beam 

on the traffic side and a single section of Thrie-beam on the field side of the 

transition. One of the traffic side nested rails was 10-gauge. The other nested rail 

and the backside rail were both 12-gauge material. A 10-gauge transition piece was 

used between the Thrie-beam and the approach W-beam guardrail, and the next 

2211-mm long section of W-beam was also 10-gauge material. Six 250 mm x 250 

mm wood posts on 953-mm centers were used to support the transition. The five 

posts nearest the vertical concrete parapet (with a 125-mm chamfer on its leading 

edge) were 2440-mm long. The sixth large post, at the W-beam to transition piece 

location, was 1830-mm long. These details are shown in the enclosure. 

Three tests were successfully conducted on this design: the 2000-kg pickup truck 

impacting at a nominal speed of 100 km/h and at 25 degrees with the vehicle 

centered on the concrete parapet and again with it impacting just upstream from 

the W-beam to Thrie-beam transition piece, and the 8000-kg single unit truck 

impacting at 75.5 km/h and 16 degrees approximately 2 m from the concrete 

parapet. 

Based on staff review of the information you provided, I agree that the transition 

described above meets all evaluation criteria for an NCHRP Report 350 bridge rail 

transition at test level 4 (TL-4) and it may be used on the National Highway System. 

Since it is a non-patented design, I assume that any agency interested in detailed 

drawings or test results may contact you directly at rich_peter@dot.ca.gov or by 

telephone at (916) 227-7257. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 
 (original signed by Carol H. Jacoby) 

Carol H. Jacoby, P.E. 

 Director, Office of Safety Design 

Enclosure
#### Wilbur M. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied. Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla., 229 So.2d 239.
EXHIBIT 12.2

                                  Certification


I, Brett Allan Cruickshank certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Tenon Limited;

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 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The company's other certifying officer 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)) for the company and
      have:

      i.    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
            company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
            us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
            in which this report is being prepared;

      ii.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
            end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
            and

      iii.  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
            covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
            reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

5.    The company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the company's auditor and the audit committee of the company's board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.


Date: December 16, 2004

                                            By:  ________________________
                                            Brett Allan Cruickshank
                                            Chief Financial Officer
No. 9911.

#### The Akron Engineering Co. et al. *v.*Nevin.

(Decided February 5, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Summit County.

*Messrs. Young & Wanamaker*and *Mr. P. B. Treash,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Rial M. Smith*and *Messrs. Grant & Sieber,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### Donald CROSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No.76-1888.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring specially:

The appellant, Donald Crosby, was convicted of manslaughter. At trial he claimed self defense.

On cross-examination of Crosby and during final argument, the prosecutor questioned the failure of the appellant to claim self defense in a tape recorded statement given to police and introduced into evidence. Crosby now claims that the argument of the prosecutor constituted improper comments on his right to remain silent. In my opinion the comments of the prosecutor did not go to Crosby’s silence in the face of accusation but rather were directed to the inconsistency of the position being taken by Crosby at trial compared to the statement given to police. The credibility of Crosby’s testimony, like that of other witnesses, was subject to proper attack. A showing of Crosby’s prior silence would not be a proper attack. However, a showing of a prior inconsistent statement is proper.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3818 

To amend the Clean Air Act to include fuel for ocean-going vessels as 

additional renewable fuel for which credits may be generated under 

the renewable fuel program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2024 

Mr. RICKETTS (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to include fuel for oceangoing vessels as additional renewable fuel for which credits may be generated under the renewable fuel program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Renewable Fuel for 

5 Ocean-Going Vessels Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RENEWABLE FUEL FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 211(o)(1)(A) of the 

8 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(A)) is amended by 

9 striking ‘‘fossil fuel present in home heating oil or jet fuel’’ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3818 IS

1 and inserting ‘‘fossil fuel present in home heating oil, fuel 

2 for ocean-going vessels, or jet fuel’’. 

3 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub4 section (a) shall apply beginning with respect to the sec5 ond calendar year beginning after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act. 

7 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

9 Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate such 

10 regulations as may be necessary to implement the amend11 ment made by subsection (a). 

12 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year 

13 after the date of promulgating the final regulations re14 quired under subsection (c), the Administrator of the En15 vironmental Protection Agency shall submit to the Com16 mittee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Rep17 resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Pub18 lic Works of the Senate a report describing the implemen19 tation of the amendment made by subsection (a) and the 

20 regulations promulgated under subsection (c). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Milton BRICKMAN, Appellant, v. Ray L. BRICKMAN, Appellee.

No. 69-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 6, 1970.

John W. Rodgers, Orlando, for appellant.

Eli H. Subin of Roth, Segal & Levine, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of this cause following oral argument, it appears that the judgment from which this appeal is taken was rendered on 16 December 1968, there having been served no timely motion for rehearing in accordance with Rule 1.530(b) F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. The notice of appeal filed 21 February 1969 is, therefore, untimely.

Accordingly, this cause is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

WALDEN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21

                       Subsidiaries of Cygne Designs, Inc.


                                                    Jurisdiction of Organization
                   Subsidiary                             or Incorporation
                   ----------                       ----------------------------
Sportswear International (USA), Inc. ............       Delaware

CTB Limited .....................................       British Virgin Islands

Cygne Guatemala, S.A. ...........................       Guatemala

JMB Internacional, S.A. .........................       Guatemala

C.M. Israel Sewing Houses Ltd. ..................       Israel

M.T.G.I. - Textile Manufacturers Group
  (Israel) Limited ..............................       Israel

Wear & Co. S.r.l. ...............................       Italy

AC Services, Inc. ...............................       Delaware

MBS Company, Inc. ...............................       Delaware

Cygne Group (F.E.) Limited ......................       Hong Kong

Fenn, Wright and Manson Incorporated ............       New York

HKN (US) Inc. ...................................       New York
#### Ralph B. KELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-574, 72-575.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. Sophia K. WOLTER, Appellee.

No. K-450.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 26, 1970.

James M. Smith, Jr., Ocala, for appellant.

C. John Coniglio, Wildwood, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Security Life and Trust Co. v. Jones, 202 So.2d 906 (Fla.App.1959).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In notice document FR 97-27285 beginning on page 53606 in the 
issue of Wednesday, October 15, 1997, make the following correction:
    On page 53606 in the third column, the DATE of the meeting was 
incorrectly listed as October 5, 1997. This should be changed to read 
November 5, 1997.

    Issued at Washington, DC on October 22, 1997.

Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-28508 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 3.1b

**AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS**

**OF**

**DWS RREEF REAL ESTATE FUND II, INC.**

 

This Amendment to the Bylaws of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc., a Maryland corporation, is effective as of April 9, 2009.  

 

The Bylaws are hereby amended as follows (double underlined text is added):

|   | 1. | Article III, Section 7 is hereby amended as follows: |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | Section 7. | VOTING. |
|--------|------------|---------|

 

(a)  General.  The action of the majority of the directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the action of the Board of Directors, unless the concurrence of a greater proportion is required for such action by applicable law, the charter or these Bylaws.  If enough directors have withdrawn from a meeting to leave less than a quorum but the meeting is not adjourned, the action of the majority of that number of the directors necessary to constitute a quorum at such meeting shall be the action of the Board of Directors, unless the concurrence of a greater proportion is required for such action by applicable law, the charter or these Bylaws.

(b)  Entry Into New Investment Advisory Agreement.  The affirmative vote of at least 80% of the directors shall be required in order for the Corporation to enter into any new investment management agreement that includes a higher management fee than the existing investment management agreement.  This Section 7(b) may only be amended by the affirmative vote of at least 80% of the directors.

(c)  Entry Into Investment Management Agreement with Interested Stockholder.  The affirmative vote of at least 80% of the directors not affiliated or associated with the applicable Interested Stockholder, as defined below, shall be required in order for the Corporation to enter into any investment management agreement with (1) any beneficial or record owner of 5% or more of the shares of any class of stock of the Corporation (an “Interested Stockholder”), (2) any person controlling, controlled by or under common control, directly or indirectly, with an Interested Stockholder, or (3) any other affiliate or associate of an Interested Stockholder.  For purposes of this Section 7(c) the terms “control” (including the terms “controlling,” “controlled by” and “under common control with”), “affiliate” and “associate” shallhave same meaning as in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, provided, however, that the term “associate” of a person shall also mean any other person that has any direct or indirect financial or business relationship with such person. As used herein, “person” shall be broadly defined to include, without limitation, any individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or other entity.  This Section 7(c) may only be amended by the affirmative vote of at least 80% of the directors who are not affiliated or associated with any Interested Stockholder.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 770-771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-287]


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

PAROLE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Department of Justice, United States Parole 
Commission.

DATE AND TIME: The first Tuesday of each month throughout Calendar Year 
1997, at 3:30 p.m., with the exception of those months in which the 
Commission gives public notice of the holding of a quarterly business 
meeting.

PLACE: 5550 Friendship Boulevard, Suite 400, Chevy Chase, Maryland 
20815.

STATUS: Closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The following matters will be considered 
during the monthly meetings covered by this announcement:

    Prisoner and parolee appeals to the National Appeals Board under 
28 CFR 2.26, and initial decisions regarding original jurisdiction 
cases under 28 CFR 2.17,

[[Page 771]]

whenever such cases are found to require discussion among the 
Commissioners prior to voting. These decisions pertain to cases 
initially heard by examiners wherein inmates of Federal prisons or 
persons on Federal parole have applied for parole or are contesting 
revocation of parole or mandatory release.

AGENCY CONTACT: Tom Kowalski, Case Operations, United States Parole 
Commission, (301) 492-5862.

    Dated: December 20, 1996.
Michael A. Stover,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-287 Filed 1-2-97; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         113,805
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,195
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               349,209
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,103,993
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         543,521
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           529,030
<LOANS>                                      8,995,229
<ALLOWANCE>                                     39,174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,967,072
<DEPOSITS>                                   5,247,668
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,300,944
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            414,282
<LONG-TERM>                                    220,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           316
<OTHER-SE>                                     598,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,967,072
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                652,886
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              146,502
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                11,320
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               810,708
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             262,761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             546,064
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          264,644
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   18,107
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,841
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                172,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                157,833
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      78,894
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,323
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.52
<LOANS-NON>                                     54,711
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                39,660
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   19,036
<RECOVERIES>                                       443
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               39,174
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            39,174
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### HIGH, CLARKE & FENEIS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-1046.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 28, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1970.

George & McQuade, Miami, for appellant.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, and Robert Lane, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant counterclaimant appeals from a final judgment for the plaintiff after a jury found for the appellee upon its claim and against the appellant upon its counterclaim.

The sole point presented on appeal asserts that the instruction given by the trial court incorrectly stated the law applicable to the case. The record reveals that the judgment must be affirmed without our passing upon the sufficiency of the instruction, because appellant did not raise at the time of the charge conference the objection it urges here. Its sole objection below was so general in nature as to fail to inform the court of the objection raised here. Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 85, 87.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEXANDRA SALINAS,

Appellant,

vs.

AUSTIN

- RIVERSIDE OZ SPE LLC

d/b/a ARISE RIVERSIDE,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00205

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# C

- 1

- CV

- 22

- 001798)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution . We

fu rther order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER , 20 22

.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2




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, Sandrine Crisafulli, 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.




Date:
      November 20, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Sandrine CrisafulliSandrine
      CrisafulliChief
      Financial Officer