alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

November 23, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Clean Energy

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a teleconference held on Friday, November 12, 2010 and 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 between EPA and Clean Energy, NGV America, and Westport 

and included the following individuals:

Natural Gas Interests: Todd Campbell, David Bookbinder, Karen Hamberg, Jonathon Burke, 

Charlie Carr, Scott Baser, Michael Evans, Camela Krebs, and Jeff Clarke

EPA: Byron Bunker, Angela Cullen, Julian Davis, Alan Stout, Chuck Moulis, Cle Jackson, and 

Don Kopinski

The groups discussed how natural gas engines were proposed to be regulated, including 

clarification on whether a natural gas engine would be subject to the spark-ignition or 

compression-ignition GHG standards, advanced technology credits, and upstream emissions of 

natural gas.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-112360, 333-136116 and 333-146114) and Form S-8 (No. 333-130235, 333-122155, 333-138863, 333-112148, 333-112213, 333-71374, 333-66993, 333-50292, 333-03656, 333-92525, 333-39065, 333-50296 and 333-147423)of Adept Technology, Inc. of our report dated September 9, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

*/s/ Armanino McKenna LLP*

ARMANINO McKENNA LLP 

San Ramon, California 

September 9, 2008
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Modavox Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended November 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
J. Ide, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Modavox
Inc., 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) as
applicable, 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 operation of the Company.

Date: March 19, 2009


/s/ David J. Ide
----------------
David J. Ide
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Modavox, Inc. and will
be retained by Modavox, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 26345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12332]



[[Page 26343]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 109

June 6, 2018

Part II





The President





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



Presidential Determination No. 2018-08 of May 14, 2018--Presidential 
Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 26345]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2018-08 of May 14, 2018

                
Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 
                1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense 
                Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary 
                of the Treasury[, and] the Secretary of Energy

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, after 
                carefully considering the reports submitted to the 
                Congress by the Energy Information Administration, 
                including the report submitted in April 2018, and other 
                relevant factors such as global economic conditions, 
                increased oil production by certain countries, the 
                global level of spare petroleum production capacity, 
                and the availability of strategic reserves, I 
                determine, pursuant to section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of 
                the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
                2012, Public Law 112-81, and consistent with prior 
                determinations, that there is a sufficient supply of 
                petroleum and petroleum products from countries other 
                than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the 
                volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased 
                from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions.

                I will continue to monitor this situation closely.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, May 14, 2018

[FR Doc. 2018-12332
Filed 6-5-18; 11:15 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
#### Jerry C. WALLER, etc., Appellant, v. Wilton E. FRANKLIN, Appellee.

No. 72-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
260 La. 21

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles JACKSON.

No. 51598.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Sam F. Cangelosi, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Alton T. Moran, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Defendant Charles Jackson, pleaded guilty to simple robbery, La.R.S. 14:65. He appeals this conviction.

A plea of guilty waives all defects prior to that plea except those jurisdictional defects which appear on the face of the pleadings and proceedings. State v. Coats (decided this date), 260 La. 64, 255 So.2d 75. No bills of exception were reserved or perfected. On this appeal we are limited to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2). We find no error.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PARKS SUPERIOR SALES, INC.,

Respondent

v.

BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, STATE

BOARD OF MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS AND SALESPERSONS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 792 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50747

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENNETH WAYNE MARION,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-173-1

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Kenneth Wayne Marion appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting the

manufacture of more than 100 marijuana plants. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

802(15), (22). His girlfriend and codefendant, Bianca Nichole Mancha, pleaded

guilty and testified against him.

Marion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the

manufacture (i.e., growing) of marijuana plants on or about April 14, 2009, the

date alleged in the indictment. He argues that the Government’s evidence

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 11, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50747 Document: 00511473468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2011
No. 10-50747

demonstrated that he may have been on the same property as the marijuana

plants between 2007 and May 27, 2008, but there was insufficient evidence that

he manufactured (i.e., grew) marijuana on or about April 14, 2009.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the

evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most

favorable to the verdict, and determine whether a reasonable jury could have

found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

The evidence established that Marion lived in or frequented his trailer at

2905 South County Road 1199, that there was marijuana growing on the

property on April 15, 2009, and that the marijuana was planted and watered by

Marion and Mancha. From the time Mancha moved out of Marion’s trailer on

May 27, 2008 until at least April 14, 2009, Marion and Mancha were smoking

marijuana provided by Marion. In addition, Marion was seen at the property up

until April 14, 2009, and was still receiving mail at the property on April 14,

2009. On April 14, 2009, Marion knew the police were looking for him and he

hid on his father’s property. By September 2009, when police executed a search

warrant at 2905 South County Road 1199, it looked as if someone had tried to

move out of the trailer in a hurry.

The precise date of the offense was not significant, and the evidence was

sufficient to support Marion’s conviction. See United States v. Tunnell, 667 F.2d

1182, 1186 (5th Cir. 1982).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50747 Document: 00511473468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40221

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRUZ RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L-01-CR-838-ALL)

December 3, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cruz Ramos appeals his guilty-plea conviction for transporting

undocumented aliens within the United States in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1324 & 18 U.S.C. § 2. Ramos contends: the factual basis

was insufficient to support his guilty plea; and the district court

misadvised him regarding the nature of his plea because the

indictment alleged only that the aliens “entered” the United States

and that he furthered such violation. Ramos asserts that the
2

factual basis did not support that he assisted the aliens’ entry

into the United States because their entry had already been

completed at the time he transported them. 

FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(f) requires the district court to ensure

there is a factual basis for the plea by comparing “(1) the conduct

to which the defendant admits with (2) the elements of the offense

charged in the indictment or information” to ensure that the

defendant’s conduct falls within the charge. United States v.

Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (citation omitted),

cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 37 (2001). Rule 11(c) requires the

district court to advise the defendant of, and to determine that he

understands, among other things, “the nature of the charge to which

the plea is offered[.]” See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1). Ramos did

not object to any claimed Rule 11 error. Therefore, his challenges

are reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 122

S. Ct. 1043, 1046 (2002).

Current law does not support Ramos’ reading of the meaning of

the term entry and/or entered as it is used in § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error. See

United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995)(en banc); United States v. Hull, 160

F.3d 265, 272 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1136 (1998). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                             TO REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
                     FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1995
                     FIRST OF MICHIGAN CAPITAL CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  --------------------------

                                                   DECEMBER 29, 1995                     DECEMBER 30, 1994
                                                   -----------------                     -----------------

                                             PRIMARY            FULLY DILUTED       PRIMARY       FULLY DILUTED
                                                                                                               
                                             --------          --------------      --------      --------------
<S>                                        <C>                   <C>             <C>               <C>
Weighted average shares
outstanding:
    Common shares                          2,751,910             2,751,910        2,867,642        2,867,642
    Dilutive shares available
    under stock options                        2,926                 2,533           60,026           59,924


Weighted average common shares                                                                            
    and common stock equivalents           ---------             ---------        ---------        ---------
    outstanding                            2,754,836             2,754,443        2,927,668        2,927,566
                                           =========             =========        =========        =========

Net earnings applicable to
    common shares                          $ 416,331             $ 416,331       $  366,673        $ 366,373
                                           =========             =========       ==========        =========

Earnings per share                             $ .15                 $ .15             $.13             $.13
                                           =========             =========       ==========        =========
</TABLE>
July 20, 2015

Mr. Pascual Pla

F errovial Agroman, US Corp

North America Headquarters

9600 Great Hills Trail, Suite 200E

Austin, TX 78759

Dear Mr. Pla :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It expla ins why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your May 26, 2015 , exemption request on behalf of Ferrovial Agroman, US Corp

into the public docket (No. FAA

- 2015

- 1922 ), but we are unab le to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed e ffective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.2

Sincerely,

/s /

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10594 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. CL AY TO N H FU CH S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 3 :02 -C R -3 6 9 -1 U SD C N o. 3: 07- C V - 958 B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * C la y t o n H . F u c h s , fe d e r a lp r i s o n e r#2 9 6 7 9 - 1 7 7 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s deni alof

hi s m ot i on forrel eas e pendi ng t he di spo si t i on of h i s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on . R el ease pen di n g di sposi t i on of a S ect i on 225 5 m ot i on w i llb e g ra n t ed on l y w h en t h e p ri soner h as rai sed a sub st an t i alconst i t u t i on alcl ai m up on w h i ch he has a hi gh pr obabi l i t y of suc c es s, and al so w hen ext r aor di nary orex c ept i onal c i r c um s t an ces exi s tw hi c h m ak e t he g r anto f b ai lne c e s s ar y t o m ak e t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10594

2 p o s tc o n v ic tio n re m e d ye ffe c tiv e . Cal ley v . Cal laway , 496 F . 2d 7 01, 702 ( 5th C i r. 197 4) . R egard l ess of t h e m eri t s of

F u chs’ s c l ai m s, up on w h i ch the di st ri ctcourt has no tye t ru l ed , Fu c hs has notpoi nt ed t o a ny “ ext r aor di nary orex c ept i onal c i r c um s t anc e s ” t hatne c e s s i t at e hi s re l e as e t o m ak e t he po s t c o nvi c t i o n r e m e dy ef fect ive. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterrby den yi n g F u chs’ s m ot i on f or r el ease. F u ch s’ s m oti o n s t o e x p ed i te this ap p ea l , to su p p l em en t t h e a p p ea l , an d to r e qui r e t i m e l y ac t i o n i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta r e de ni e d. AF F I RMED, MOTI ON D ENI ED .
Exhibit 10.11


 


Ebuzzing Terms


 


Commencing on the first date that a publisher (the “Publisher”)
provides space on its website (the “Advertising Space”) for Ebuzzing to market certain goods and services offered
by customers/advertisers (“Advertisers”) and advertise such Advertiser goods and services through information
and videos posted on, and retrievable by Publishers from, this Website (the “Effective Date”), and continuing
for successive twelve (12)-month periods or until this relationship is terminated for any reason or no reason upon thirty (30)
days’ prior written notice by either party hereto to the other party hereto) (the “Term”), Ebuzzing shall,
as consideration for the use of the Advertising Space, pay Publisher a commission (the “Commission”) as preliminarily
set forth by Ebuzzing and communicated to Publisher upon Publisher’s registration on this Website, as such amount may change
from time to time in Ebuzzing’s sole discretion upon notice to Publisher. Without limitation, and in addition, to the foregoing,
in the event that a dispute arises between Publisher and one or more third parties relating to a claim for payment of the Commission,
Ebuzzing may, in its sole discretion, determine which party is entitled to said Commission, and Publisher agrees not to dispute
such determination. Ebuzzing monitors and records all business transactions made on this Website (the “Tracking”),
and at the end of each calendar month, Ebuzzing will send a pro-forma credit note to Publisher setting forth all the advertising
campaigns (including videos) previously distributed, settled, and paid by Advertisers during the previous calendar month, (ii)
the price per broadcasted video, and (iii) the total 3 amount of the Commission; provided, however, that only the amount defined
by Ebuzzing on such pro-forma credit notes (through the use of the Tracking) and actually paid by the Advertisers shall be utilized
as a base for calculating the Commission. The Commission shall not include applicable local, state, and Federal taxes, which will
be calculated as separate items and collected as required. Ebuzzing shall use commercially reasonable efforts to pay any Commission
within thirty (30) days after the end of each applicable calendar month. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein,
in the event that Publisher does not claim payment of any or all Commissions for a period of twelve (12) months from the date that
Ebuzzing first sends a pro-forma credit note to Publisher, Publisher shall be deemed to have abandoned any and all debts and obligations
from Ebuzzing relating hereto or thereto. No request to invoice will be sent for a total amount inferior to 75 Dollars, exclusive
of any tax.
Order entered January 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01456-CV

SLOAN CREEK II, L.L.C., Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-3356-2008

ORDER

We GRANT the January 29, 2015 unopposed motion of appellee, the State of Texas, for 

an extension of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file its brief by MARCH 11, 2015. We 

caution appellee that no further extension of time will be granted in this accelerated appeal 

absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 14, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1457

Lower Tribunal No. F85-22623A

________________

Willie Lee Harper,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.

Willie Lee Harper, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(b) (providing: “No motion [for 

correction of credit for time spent in the county jail before sentencing] shall 

be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 1 year after the 

sentence becomes final.”)