alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

95) IV-C-61 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:56 AM Sheet 95 of 232 
P.2 

fr-8-7-J4-

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

y!^> -t£-.c-c/ 

* mjrn&l S UNITED b 1 Al ta trt v mui-inn,i-1 AL rnu i 

I Yp Z .* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB 8 1988 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Don Sundquist 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Sundquist: 

This is in response to your January 25, 1988 letter 

relaying the concerns of one of your constituents, Mr. Vernon 

Jenkins, regarding EPA's regulatory proposal to require 

onboard canisters on new vehicles to control refueling 

emissions. To assist you with your response, I have enclosed 

a copy of our proposal for your review. Section E (pages 

31177-31182) explains EPA's overall rationale for proposing 

onboard controls. If you would like further details of our 

analysis, please contact Mr. Philip Carlson of the Standards 

Development and Support Branch of the Emission Control 

Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place the letter 

from Mr. Jenkins in our public docket and fully consider his 

comments in the next phase of our rulemaking process. 

Sincerely yours, 

C?.lG'NM S'.oMED-BY 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Prepared by: Form Letter:sal:2/3/88:AL880403 - ECTD, Ann Arbor, MI 

bcc: Region 04 

Congressional Liaison/Quinn
#### SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY v. HARRIS et al.

No. 8075.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1937.

F. C. Clowdsley, Dist. Atty., R. M. Dunne, Asst. Dist. Atty., and J. Leroy Johnson, all of Stockton, Cal. (Orrick, Palmer & Dahlquist, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for appellant.

Robert B. Gaylord and Robert B. Gay-lord, Jr., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

 The appellant applied to the court in an equity receivership of the property of the Harris Harvester Company for an order directing the receiver to pay taxes due to it, which had been assessed upon personal property belonging to the Harris Harvester Company. The trial court denied the petition, and at the time of ordering a 20 per cent, dividend upon certain unsecured merchandise claims aggregating $43,344.82, and upon unpaid commissions of $2,814.99, declined to order any payment whatever to the County of San Joaquin, stating in his order “that the claim of said County of San Joaquin for taxes is without merit either as a preferred or a general claim.” Personal property taxes due the county were a lien upon the real estate of the taxpayer. Cal. Political Code § 3717. This real estate was also subject to a trust deed. It was sold under the trust deed to F. K. Woll and M. D. Clelland. The purchasers have paid the taxes in question, hence the appeal has become moot, notwithstanding the fact that the taxes were paid under protest.

Appeal dismissed.
April 29, 2015

Mr. Robert Wise

18150 NW Clamo Court

Portland, OR 97229

Dear Mr. Wise :

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

rulemaking from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can ’t

process your request, gives you some important information about how we have handled

similar requests, and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your March 30

, 2015, exemption / rulemaking reques t i nto the public docket No.

FAA

- 2015

- 0827 , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you

sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

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

benef it the public as a whole.

 The reasons the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would

provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an

exemption.

 Any more information, views, or argume nts available to support your request.

 The specific reasons you need to exercise the privileges of your exem ption outside the

United States, if applicable.2

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days from the date of this letter , we will clos e the docket

with out further contact

.

If you have any questions or need more time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

James M. Crotty

Manager, Aircraft and Airports Rules Division

Enclosure

§ 11.813

Project No.: AXX

- xx

- xxx

- E

Project Officer: ________

_______ ARM

- 207:FShaver:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM

- 1/200/207:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[ Insert Stylewriter Score Here ]

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
#### Jessie L. MYLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 1973.

*517James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jessie L. Myles, timely appeals to this -court from an order entered by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court summarily denying a post-conviction motion brought under RCrP 3.850 33 F.S.A.

Appellant was charged in a one count information with the offense of robbery. He pled not guilty, was tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to a term in the state prison. He filed a direct appeal and this court, in Patterson et al. v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 593, affirmed.

We have reviewed the record, considered the points raised on the appeal by appellant and find them to be without merit, being based on mere allegation, without more. See rationale of Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So.2d 790. The record does not support the contention of appellant that he is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing.

We point out that the “MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION/SENTENCE” filed by appellant, pro se, challenged the legality of jury selection in Hillsborough County. With regard to this point see the special concurring opinion of Chief Judge Mann of this court in the case of Latson v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 496.

Appellant, having failed to demonstrate reversible error we, accordingly,

Affirm.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and BOARD-MAN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-33013,  No. 33-33063,  No. 33-65157,  No. 33-68860 and No. 333-49837 on Forms
S-8 and  Registration  Statement No.  33-45815 on Form S-3 of Network  Equipment
Technologies,  Inc.  of our  reports  dated  April  15,  1998,  incorporated  by
reference   in  this  Annual   Report  on  Form  10-K/A  of  Network   Equipment
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 1998.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
July 14, 1998
<PAGE>

                              Verizon Florida Inc.

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Six Months Ended
(Dollars in Millions)                                          June 30, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
Income before provision for income taxes                                $158.7
Interest expense                                                          52.8
Portion of rent expense representing interest                             11.1
Amortization of capitalized interest                                        .3
                                                              -----------------
Earnings, as adjusted                                                   $222.9
                                                              =================

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                                                        $ 52.8
Portion of rent expense representing interest                             11.1
Capitalized interest                                                        .6
                                                              -----------------
Fixed Charges                                                           $ 64.5
                                                              =================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                        3.46
                                                              =================
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

s0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

144604

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144604

COA: 307031

Wayne CC: 10-009568-01

THEO DEMEKO THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2011 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

       In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Manufacturers'
Services Limited (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Annual Report"), the undersigned, Robert C. Bradshaw, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Albert A. Notini, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the results of operations of
the Company.


Dated: March 31, 2003                      /s/ Robert C. Bradshaw
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Robert C. Bradshaw
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Dated: March 31, 2003                      /s/ Albert A. Notini
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Albert A. Notini
                                           Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Solelyin connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of RetractableTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2010, as filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned ThomasJ. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan, Chief FinancialOfficer, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the issuer.

 

Date:                   August 16, 2010

 
|   | s/ Thomas J. Shaw                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | THOMAS J. SHAW                              |
|   | PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN,  AND                   |
|   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     |
|   |                                        |
|   |                                        |
|   | s/ Douglas W. Cowan                         |
|   | DOUGLAS W. COWAN                            |
|   | VICE PRESIDENT AND  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |

 

----
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                July 16, 2007 |   | /s/                Larry F. Vance                                                      |
|-------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Name:                Larry F. Vance                                                    |
|                                |   | Title:                Chairman of the Board and Chief                Executive Officer |

----
# C_2020215EN.01005701.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/57

---

Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Oatly v EUIPO (IT'S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS)

(Case T-253/20)

(2020/C 215/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oatly AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS — Application for registration No 18 035 560

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 in Case R 2446/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant at the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant at the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### REVES *v.*HILLMER.

1. Process — Open to Direct Attack.

In suit to set aside judgment in justice’s court for want of jurisdiction of person, officer’s return of service may be attacked; said attack being direct and not collateral.

*240-2. Judgment — Process—Jurisdiction—Setting Aside Judgment.

Where, in suit to set aside judgment In justice’s court for want of jurisdiction of person, testimony that officer served process on wrong person was convincing and not disputed, judgment was properly set aside.

Appeal from Wayne; Searl (Kelly S.), J., presiding.

Submitted October 13, 1931.

(Docket No. 88, Calendar No. 35,790.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

Rehearing denied March 3, 1932.

Bill by Earl J. Reves against John B. Hillmer to set aside a judgment for want of service. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*William L. Thorp,*for plaintiff.

*Arthur E. Koch (Charles C. Stewart,*of counsel), *for*defendant.

Clark, J.

The bill was filed to set aside a judgment as void for want of jurisdiction of the person, no service of process, and to enjoin execution thereon. Plaintiff had decree. Defendant has appealed.

The law action was in justice’s court. The officer’s return of service is that he served the summons personally on the defendant Reves, plaintiff here.

In the trial of the case before us', plaintiff testified that he was not served with the summons. Another witness named Harris testified that the officer served the summons on him under the mistaken belief or assertion that he was Reves. Defendant stood on the officer’s return and offered no testimony.

Cases cited by appellant to the effect that the return of the officer,, is not open to collateral attack are not in point. This is a direct attack.

, Granting that more convincing proof must be submitted by one attacking the validity of a judgment *241by impeaching the officer’s return than is ordinarily required in civil cases *(Garey*v. *Morley Brothers,*234 Mich. 675), the evidence here is not disputed, and it is convincing.

The decree must be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |                                                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | /s/                          **J****OHN****H. S****OTTILE** |
|   | John                        H. Sottile Chairman                        of the Board of Directors, President and                        Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive                        Officer)August                        14, 2007 |

----
# C_2021422EN.01000701.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2021 — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

(Case C-467/21)

(2021/C 422/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Comune di Venezia

Respondents: Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

Question referred

Does EU law preclude a provision of national legislation (such as Article 8(6) of legge 22 febbraio 2001, n. 36 (Law No 36 of 22 February 2001)), which is understood and applied as allowing individual local authorities to define siting criteria for mobile telephone apparatus, which may be expressed in the form of prohibitions, such as a prohibition on placing antennae in specific areas or within a certain distance of a certain type of building?

---
EXHIBIT NO. 10.2

 

MEMORANDUM

 

To:		Bernard J. Demko

From:		Marc T. Giles

Re:		Appointment, Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company")

Date:		September 30, 2002

 

	Effective September 30, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") has appointed you Chief Operating Officer of the Company.   You will remain a Senior Vice President of the Company.   The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board has set your base salary at $252,220 per year effective September 30, 2002.  Your fiscal 2003 bonus target under the Company's 2000-2004 Executive Annual Incentive Bonus Plan will remain at 50% and your bonus will be calculated using your base salary as of April 30, 2003.    Effective September 30, 2002, you will no longer be eligible to receive the Company car allowance.

	If this memorandum sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof, kindly sign and return the enclosed copy of this memorandum, which will then constitute our agreement on this subject.

 

|   | Marc T. Giles     |
|--------|-------------------|
|   | President and CEO |

 

Agreed this 18th date of October, 2002.

 

/s/ Bernard J. Demko                        

Bernard J. Demko
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nelson SCOTT.

No. 61937.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

*774Alton T. Moran, Director of the Office of Public Defender, Allen J. Bergeron, Jr., Appellate Counsel, Stuart R. Thomson, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr„ Atty. Gen., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., David M. Miller, Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.