alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,074,000
<SECURITIES>                                 9,602,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,120,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,176,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,432,000
<PP&E>                                       2,952,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,016,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,645,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,214,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,829,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,645,000
<SALES>                                     58,963,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,963,000
<CGS>                                       46,166,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,166,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,458,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,317,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (978,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (103,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (875,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
#### Allen J. WEBER v. Mr. & Mrs. Calvin C. McMILLAN et al.

No. 54273.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: Mr. and Mrs. Calvin C. McMillan applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 285 So.2d 349.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com

To: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Subject: Re: FW: Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results

Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:17:55 PM

Attachments: 26A.pdf

29 w particulate.pdf

0061.pdf

Ms. Wang,

We are not claiming them as CBI.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

 

 "Hancy, Cindy 

 Wang" 

 <chancy@rti.org> To

 <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com> 

 02/22/2012 12:43 cc

 PM 

 Subject

 FW: Guardian Kingman Preliminary 

 Test Results 

 

Mr. Thomas,

This was forwarded to me by Susan Fairchild. I noticed there are production

rates included and I wanted to double check that you are not claiming these

as CBI.

Thanks,

----- Forwarded by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/22/2012 10:49 AM

-----

From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/17/2012 05:39 PM

Subject: Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results

Susan, as you requested, I am forwarding the preliminary test results from

the Kingman furnace stack. See the pdf files attached to the email below.
The Method 0061 chrome results were slightly lower compared to the Method

29 chrome results for the other three melters already tested in 2010

(Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude.

The Method 29 chrome results were higher compared to the Method 29 chrome

results for the other three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood

& Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude as the Winnsboro melter.

The vaporous back half chrome emissions are an order of magnitude lower,

so, in our case, the filterable front half represents over 80% of the

chrome.

The hexavalent chrome emissions were slightly higher compared to the other

three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the

same order of magnitude and almost no difference.

We also tested HF and HCL and they were an order of magnitude lower

compared to the Albion, Inwood and Winnsboro furnaces.

In sum, nothing surprising. The emissions for the four (4) plants tested

so far are about the same.

I am headed to Inwood next week for testing of that furnace. As time

permits, I will forward the Kingman test report when it becomes available.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

----- Forwarded by Grover Thomas/BP/Guardian_Industries on 02/17/2012

05:01

PM -----

 "Tony Blanton"

 <tony@integrityai

 r.net>

To

 <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com>

 02/17/2012 03:41

cc

 PM "Jim Lewis"

<jim@integrityair.net>

Subject

 Kingman Results

 Please respond to

 "Tony Blanton"

 <tony@integrityai

 r.net>
Grover,

Please see attached the results from the Kingman Melter sampling.

Thank you

J.A. "Tony" Blanton, QSTI

President

Integrity Air Monitoring, Inc.

PO Box 559

Huntersville, NC 28070-0559

www.integrityair.net

(704) 948-2359

(704) 948-2361 fax

(704) 618-5082 mobile(See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w

particulate.pdf)(See attached file: 0061.pdf) (See attached file:

26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf) (See attached file:

0061.pdf)

(See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf)(See

attached file: 0061.pdf)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 30, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00223

- CV

Mark S Kemple and Charlene Patricia Kemple , Appellant s

v.

Texas Residential Management, Kevin Shae, and Haydee Shae , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

VACATED AND REMANDED ON JOINT MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the tr i a l court on January 19, 2022

. The

parties have filed a joint motion to vacate the tr ial court ’ s judgment and rema nd the appeal, and

having considered the motion , th e Court agrees that the motion should b e granted

. Therefore,

the Court grants the motion , vacates the trial court ’ s judgment without regard to the merits

,

and remand s the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the

parties ’ agreement

. Because appellant s are indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
263 La. 86

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roland CORBELLO.

No. 51832.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 4, 1972.

Raleigh Newman, Lake Charles, for def endant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles W. Richard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction and one year jail sentence for possession of marijuana.

The state’s first witness was a deputy sheriff in charge of an undercover narcotics operation. He had employed tivo persons, a man and a woman, tO' investigate illegal narcotics activity; the man was to be one of the main witnesses against the defendant. On cross examination the deputy was asked if he had been told that the male “undercover agent” he had employed had been a drug user. The deputy denied it.

On redirect, the assistant district attorney (because, he said, he knew the deputy was mistaken) interrogated the deputy about conversations with the estranged wife of the agent. The deputy then testified that the agent’s estranged wife told him that he was a drug user. Then the prosecutor asked: “In your opinion, Mr. Hebert, is she (the agent’s wife) a sane, reasonable woman?”. The defense objected, stating: “He’s not a Psychiatrist, or anything else. If she takes the stand the jury can make their own determination whether she is worthy of belief. That’s not Mr. Hebert’s province.” (The woman in question had been summoned by the defense.)

The objection was overruled, and Bill of Exceptions #6 was perfected.

Continuing his examination concerning the sanity of the agent’s wife, the prosecutor asked: “And with your conversations with her did she appear to be a reasonable or sane type of individual?”. The deputy answered: “No, sir, she was not. *205She appeared to be a real bad mental case, sir.”

There is no authority in Louisiana allowing the impeachment of a prospective witness. To the contrary, such procedure is specifically prohibited. R.S. 15 :484 provides :

> “Before a witness has been sworn he can be neither corroborated nor impeached, nor is testimony to establish the credibility of a witness admissible until that credibility has been attacked.”

Bill of Exceptions #6 is good, and the conviction and sentence must be reversed.

In addition, error was committed in the trial court in connection with the examination of character witnesses for the defendant. Bill of Exceptions #11 was perfected when an objection was sustained to the following question asked a defense witness: “Mr. Boise, have you heard of his reputation in this community discussed for being law abiding — for being a law abiding citizen?”

Excluding such evidence was error. Evidence of the good character of the accused is always admissible, and depends on his general reputation. R.S. 15:479, 480.

The conviction and sentence are reversed.
No. 10634.

#### Eisele *v.*The Merchants' and Manufacturers' National Bank of Columbus et al.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. James C. Nicholson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Florizel Smith*and *Messrs. Henderson, Livesay & Burr,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
[No. 285-3.

Division Three.

August 4, 1971.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*Roy C. Thornton, *Deceased.*Lucy Antoine, *Appellant,*v. Theo H. Thornton, *as Executrix, Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, No. 7006, Delbert R. Scoles, J., entered May 27, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2023127EN.01001101.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-633/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (Greece) - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)

(2023/C 127/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that:






  — | by systematically and persistently exceeding, from 2010 to 2020 inclusive, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (EL 0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13 of, and Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that:

—

by systematically and persistently exceeding, from 2010 to 2020 inclusive, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (EL 0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13 of, and Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and

| — | by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for ΝΟ2 in that agglomeration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures so that the exceedance period of that limit value can be kept as short as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for ΝΟ2 in that agglomeration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures so that the exceedance period of that limit value can be kept as short as possible;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:
 
 (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: July 13, 2009/s/Tami Story.Tami Story, Secretary Treasurer
 
 This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF
CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM :

Date: March 29, 2015

Subject: RD Response to Comments on Public Comments Submitted on the Federal Register Notice of Receipt for the Clothianidin Experimental Use Permit (59639

- EUP

- RI)

The Notice of R eceipt of an application for a clothianidin experiment use permit (59639

- EUP

RI) was open for a 30 day public comment period in the docket EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2014

- 0667 at regulations.gov. The purpose of this document is to address public co mments submitted by the Pollinator Stewardship Council (PSC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) that were not answered by the E nvironmental Fate and Effects Division (E FED )

.

CFS Comment : CFS comments that granting the EUP would cause severe and unreaso nable adverse effects on the environment, including but not limited to unassessed harm to honey bees and other beneficial invertebrates, as well as to birds that are directly and indirectly harmed by the corn plantings.

PSC Comment : Clothianidin is docu mented as causing both acute and chronic harm to honey bees when used on corn. PSC encouraged the EPA to maintain its position against approving experimental use permits until pollinator risk assessments are complete. The PSC had concerns regarding the s olubility of clothianidin in water which w ere addressed by EFED ’s Response to

Comments

.

EPA Response : The proposed EUP is an in

- furrow soil treatment for clothianidin treated corn seed and will only be applied to a combined total of 500 acres in three states: Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. According to the proposed use rates on the EUP label, the maximum rate of clothianidin per corn seed is 0.5 mg active ingredient (a.i.)/seed which is lower than the currently labeled maximum rate of 1.25 mg a.i./seed. Therefore, the exposure to clothianidin residues from abraded dust is likely to be lower than those from the currently registered use on

corn seed. The in

- furrow application of the EUP will be conducted at low boom heights which are unlikely t o result in significant spray drift. EPA considers that acute exposures to honey bees foraging in or near the field at the time of application are likely to be similar or lower than thosefrom the currently registered use on corn.

The registrant will c ollect pollen samples from the EUP treated fields to determine if this method of application is effective against corn rootworm and to determine if the systemic uptake of the

clothianidin has increased. The registrant has also committed to develop and carryout a protocol to record native pollinators’ activity on corn tassels and on flowers in field margins and natural habitats adjacent to the treated fields

.

Page of 2 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,290,000
<SECURITIES>                                22,093,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  569,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,037,000
<PP&E>                                       6,628,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,415,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,900,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,533,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,121,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,900,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,449,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,667,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,347,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,347,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0111n.06

Filed: February 14, 2005

No. 04-3006

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD ENGLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY E. BIGHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. Timothy Bigham appeals the district court’s order denying summary judgment to

the defendant. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court

determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the

district court’s decision for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion.
### Attendees EPA CRP Meeting 20 Jan. 2010 25 People

To m Lewandowski adientcorp Hans Hammer Audi Michael Schneider BMW Group Pankaj Mahajan Chrysler Juergen W ertenbach Daim ler Mary Koban Dupont Tanner Dupont Margaret Sheppard EPA Ya idi V. Cancel EPA Steve Lepper Ford Curt Vincent GM Fred Sciance GM Curt Vincent GM Harry Eustice GM Chris Seaton Honeywell David P. Wilson Honeywell 

### Ryan Fortier Hyundai

- Kia Enrique.peral

- antunez Renault Jam es.Hebden Toyota Julie He Toyota T.Ikegami Toyota Peter Nickles VW Bill Hill Sasa.Vulinovic Wa rd Atkinson
EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATION OF M. H. MCILVAIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18
                               U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned officer of American Resource Technologies, Inc. hereby certifies
that (a) Golden Chief's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Golden Chief.


Date: June 26, 2008                          /s/ M. H. MCILVAIN
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             M. H. McIlvain
                                             Exec. Vice President, and Chief
                                             Financial Officer,
                                             American Resource Technologies, Inc


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to American
Resource Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by American Resource
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel PetroleumCorporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parallel for theyear ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in that Form 10-K Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofParallel.Dated: March 16, 2006       /s/ Steven D. Foster         Steven D. Foster,    Chief Financial Officer       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1828

DONALD J. STRABLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-1141-6-13AK)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald J. Strable, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith Wray II, GIBBES,

GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Strable v. South Carolina Dep't of Justice,

No. CA-97-1141-6-13AK (D.S.C. June 12, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED