alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA-420-B-11-003 

 January 2011

Highway and Nonroad Diesel Fuel

Standards

Who Covered 

Fuel 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Highway

Diesel 

Fuel

80% 15 ppm/

20% 500 ppm

100% 15 ppm

(including small refiner fuel)

Large

Refiners/

Importers

NR 500 500 500 15 15 15 15 15

Large

Refiners/

Importers

LM 500 500 500 500 500 15 15 15

NRLM w/ 

credits (not in 

NE/MA or AK)

HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

Small

Refiners

NRLM

(not in NE/MA,

w/ approval in 

AK)

HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

Transmix

Processor

& In-use

NR

(not in NE/MA 

or AK)

HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

Transmix

Processor

& In-use

LM

(not in NE/MA 

or AK)

HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15

ECA Marine 

Fuel (no EPA sulfur level requirements) 1,000

2006 dates for HW diesel fuel: June 1 for refiners/importers, September 1 for downstream 

parties, and October 15 for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers 

2010 dates for HW diesel fuel: As of the following dates, all HW diesel fuel must meet the 15 

ppm standard- June 1 for refiners/importers, October 1 for downstream parties, and December 

1 for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers (WPCs)

2007 dates for NRLM diesel fuel: June 1 for refiners, downstream requirements for NE/MA 

area* only (August 1 for terminals, October 1 for retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in-use)

2010+ dates for NRLM diesel fuel: June 1 for refiners, August 1 for terminals, October 1 for 

retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in-use

2014 dates for ECA Marine fuel: June 1 for refiners, August 1 for terminals, October 1 for 

retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in-use

** Anti-downgrading provisions begin October 15, 2006 **

*NOTE- No small refiner or credit NRLM can be used in the NE/MA area. Thus, the large 

refiner NRLM standard is also the in-use standard in the NE/MA area.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Joseph J. Ueberroth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certifies, 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 13a-14(b)
or 15d-14(b) 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. /s/ Joseph J. UeberrothJoseph J. UeberrothChief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2004
#### TOWN OF BAY HARBOR ISLANDS v. FIELDSTONE.

No. 38816.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 357.
#### Joe Nathan HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-156.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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

March 8, 2011 

0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

142049 

MICHAEL W. WARREN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142049 

 COA: 298281 

WCAC: 09-000207 

COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 29, 2010 

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.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 31, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00248

- CV

K. M. S. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on April 1, 2024

. Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order

. Because appellant is indigent

and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
#### H. M. FIORE and Bayshore Utilities Company, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Helen A. HOWELL, Administratrix of the Estate of Nathaniel W. Howell, deceased, Appellee.

No. 71-845.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 1972.

John B. Fassett of Magaha & Fassett, Fort Myers, for appellants’.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants having failed to demonstrate clearly that the trial court erred, the order appealed from is affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(S)

                  [THE SANDS REGENCY HOTEL CASINO LETTERHEAD]


Patrick Bassney


Dear Pat:

     I am pleased to offer you the position of Vice President General Manager at
the Sands Regency with the following terms:

     1.   Weekly salary of $2,019.23 (an annual rate of $105,000). The position
          will be evaluated in 90 days for performance and annually for salary
          review.

     2.   Two weeks vacation granted after the first and second years of
          employment and three weeks after the third year of employment.

     3.   All normal benefits including group health, life, dental and vision
          benefits afforded Executive-level Managers at the Sands with immediate
          enrollment.

     4.   All reasonable moving expenses paid by the Company. Two trips to New
          York and one trip for spouse to come to Reno prior to family moving.

     5.   Reasonable temporary accommodations in the hotel while finding
          suitable housing.

     6.   A stock option grant of 30,000 shares pursuant to the Company's stock
          option plan. The shares shall be granted at an exercise price equal to
          the fair market value at date of employment and shall vest 25% upon
          each anniversary over the first four years of employment.

     7.   Bonus potential of 30% of salary based on Company performance.

     8.   This shall constitute a two year agreement. Should you be released
          during this period, you will be paid six months' severance and should
          you resign within this two year period, you shall reimburse the
          Company for all moving expenses.

I enjoyed the opportunity discussing this position with you. I hope to hear from
you soon.

Best wishes,


/s/ FERENC B. SZONY
---------------------------
Ferenc Szony, President and
Chief Executive Officer


Agreed to and Accepted this 29
day of January, 1998.


/s/ PATRICK BASSNEY
--------------------------
Patrick Bassney
<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 Quarterly Report of Day International Group, Inc
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dennis R. Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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 position and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Dennis R. Wolters
---------------------
Dennis R. Wolters
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
Exhibit 31.2 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Steve Hanni, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report of Medizone International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer and have: (a) 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 small business issuer, 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; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: July 23, 2008  /s/Steve Hanni Steve Hanni, Principal Financial Officer
5]\3Srn -d)3 /

'HpJIo ~ JZ1 a/r7 inquiring ahou-h -j-hx

u)r>+ } causi fUp.Jt IVW06/-A ^ tdiUL \ujas se^-t

-fro V-A^ TpXgj Court o-f £rly>nl»*i/ Appd^/r by

-hhL. Dfchic-hClvk of tfarrU £ov/}¥y oh or

abptrh iVirn*^.ry Df. 2£>/s^, - . /If Q-r~ y&f X- Jnavl^ nof- rdreJi/^a

floflflzet-r-Jos* -fha~^ t%^ Tex^ir /Hour/- Q-f/Cr/r*f114/

Af>p£#/s has received .QG/d UJr/f ^4*n VQ" p)£4SL i^-Arm if H f?4P arrive if -so j

U)hG~h upas -rti&- da-fe- &f i-H atrr/v*/— r^rtt/u^J

bis -tJhlTX £+ O-f £r)**.##>.?

-7ha*Jc )^u. •_

-3^*76 "2-6Z<f

y ys-^?

RECEIVED

COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IP. 2015
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carl W. Balezentis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, the Annual Report of Lark Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Lark
Technologies, Inc.

                                       By: /s/CARL W. BALEZENTIS, Ph.D
                                           ---------------------------
                                           Carl W. Balezentis, Ph.D
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

I, Jon H. Luksich, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, the Annual Report of Lark Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Lark
Technologies, Inc.

                                       By: /s/ JON H. LUKSICH
                                           ------------------
                                           Jon H. Luksich
                                           Controller
259 La. 862

#### Rosa GEYSTAND v. F. C. DOYAL, Administrator for the Division of Employment Security, et al. and Wilshire Manor Nursing Home.

No. 50946.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1971.

Dissenting Opinion Oct. 20, 1971.

C. O. Brown, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Marion Weimer, James A. Piper, and James A. McGraw, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants.

BARHAM, Justice.

The Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor has appealed from a judgment of the district court sustaining an exception to the jurisdiction which was filed by another defendant, Wilshire Manor Nursing Home. The administrator filed in this court a motion to consolidate this case with the case of Bowen v. Doyal, Administrator, No. 50945 on our docket, alleging that the issues in both cases are exactly the same.

We entertained appellate jurisdiction under Constitution Article 7, Section 10(2), in the Bowen case, this day decided, 259 La. 839, 253 So.2d 200, because the judgment there had the effect of declaring a statute unconstitutional. The record in the instant case, however, contains no reference to the statute, and it would appear that the trial judge sustained the exception as filed. Neither the exception filed nor the judgment mentions the unconstitutionality of any statute. Our appellate jurisdiction is very restricted, and the record must affirmatively establish that jurisdic*210tion. Appeals from district court judgments reviewing administrative rulings ordinarily lie to the Courts of Appeal. See Bowen v. Doyal, supra. We find no basis for exercising our appellate jurisdiction here.

For the reasons given, this appeal is ordered transferred to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, provided that the record is filed in that court within 30 days from the date on which this decree becomes final; otherwise the appeal shall be dismissed.

HAMLIN, Justice

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

This case was argued and submitted with the case of Bowen v. Doyal, Administrator of Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, and Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, No. 50,945 of the Docket of this Court. I see no reason to delay judgment in this matter by transferring it to the Court of Appeal. It should be decided here and now. See, LSA-C.C.P., Arts. 5051, 2164, 862.

SUMMERS, Justice

(dissenting).

The decree sustaining the exception of lack of jurisdiction necessarily found Section 1634 of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes to be contrary to Section 36 of Article VII of the Constitution. This being so, the matter is properly before this Court on appeal and the majority should adjudicate the question. I would reach the same result reached in my dissenting opinion in Bowen v. Doyal, Administrator of Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, and Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, 259 La. 839, 253 So.2d 200, decided this day.
#### Dennis Wayne GIEBNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-991, 70-1023.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.8(19)

                                                  AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                                      to the

             AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' STOCK PLAN

                         of SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

                      as amended and restated May 18, 1998


Pursuant  to  Section  9 of the 1995  Non-Employee  Directors'  Stock  Plan (the
"Plan") of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the "Company"), as amended and restated
May 18, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Company,  at its meeting on November
6, 1999, authorized amending the Plan as follows:

         (1)   Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the
         existing text and inserting in its
         stead the following:

                  Subject  to  adjustment  as  provided  in Section 8, the total
                  number of shares of Stock  reserved and available for issuance
                  or delivery  under the Plan is 340,000.  Of these,  the 90,000
                  shares  authorized  for issuance under the Plan as amended and
                  restated  at May 18,  1998,  may be  authorized  but  unissued
                  shares,  treasury shares, or shares acquired in the market for
                  the account of the Participant, and any shares delivered under
                  the Plan in excess of that 90,000 shall be treasury  shares or
                  shares   acquired  in  the  market  for  the  account  of  the
                  Participant.  For  purposes  of the Plan,  shares  that may be
                  purchased   upon   exercise  of  an  Option  or  delivered  in
                  settlement  of  Deferred  Stock will not be  considered  to be
                  available after such Option has been granted or Deferred Stock
                  credited,  except for  purposes  of  issuance  or  delivery in
                  connection  with such  Option  or  Deferred  Stock;  provided,
                  however,  that,  if an Option  expires for any reason  without
                  having  been  exercised  in full,  the  shares  subject to the
                  unexercised portion of such Option will again be available for
                  issuance or delivery under the Plan.

     (2) The effective date of this amendment  shall be November 6 1999.  Except
as otherwise  amended  hereby,  the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force
and effect.










<PAGE>
# C_2022222EN.01002702.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE)

(Case T-370/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE - Earlier EU word mark NUTRIBEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 222/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Alter Farmacia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alter Farmacia and Biogena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘dried kitchen herbs; preserved herbs and spices’ in Class 30 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘dried kitchen herbs; preserved herbs and spices’ in Class 30 thereof;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
# C_2022482EN.01000202.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/2

---

Appeal brought on 3 December 2021 by Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE), European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (EFVV), Children’s Health Defense Europe (CHD Europe), Ligue nationale pour la liberté des vaccinations and Terra Sos-tenible against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2021 in Case T-633/20, CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case C-749/21 P)

(2022/C 482/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE), European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (EFVV), Children’s Health Defense Europe (CHD Europe), Ligue nationale pour la liberté des vaccinations and Terra Sos-tenible (represented by: J.-C. Teissedre, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

By order of 15 September 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded, and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---