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

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

May 7, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: NGV America Meeting with EPA Regarding Proposal for 2017-2025 Light-Duty 

(LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards

FROM: Robin Moran, Senior Policy Advisor

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents a meeting held on March 26, 2012 between representatives of NGV 

America and its member companies, EPA, and NHTSA to discuss comments on the 2017-2025 

GHG/CAFE proposed rule. The meeting attendees included the following:

NGV America: John Lapetz (Westport Innovations), Karen Hay (IMPCO Technologies), 

Sherrie Merrow (Encana Natural Gas), Jeff Clarke (NGV America), Richard Kolodziej (NGV 

America)

EPA: Robin Moran, Jeff Alson, Ed Nam, Christopher Lieske

NHTSA: Jim Tamm, Rebecca Yoon, Greg Powell, John White, Kevin Green

The topics included NGV America’s comments on the proposed rule, which focused primarily 

on issues related to natural gas and incentives for natural gas vehicles. NGV America submitted 

the attached summary of the meeting, which further elaborates their position on these issues. 

Attachment
A

cold tA 2

ce:

fev

SSR

en

NT

Sig.

eden

NARS ARS

Historic census records are mainta

BOR aie

ldo
ined and released by the National Archives and Records Administration,

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about public!

ly available records like the one sho
#### Paul SPERBER and Claire M. Sperber, his wife, Appellants, v. Murray BERKOWITZ, Al Moskovits, and Max L. Bloch, Appellees.

No. 70-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Leo M. Alpert, Miami, for appellants.

Jepeway, Gassen & Jepeway, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARK-DULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment which denied their complaint for cancellation of an option agreement for the purchase of land owned by them and which granted defendant-counterclaim-ants’ counterclaim for specific performance of the contract. On appeal the appellants urge first that the court erred in denying the cancellation because the plaintiff-appellants had proved frustration of purpose, inequitable conduct and indefiniteness of contract. We have examined the record in the light of these contentions and find *726that there was conflicting evidence before the trial court upon each of them. The record reveals competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial judge. Williams McWilliams Industries, Inc. v. Heart-a-Tampa, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 920.

In addition appellants urge that the counterclaim for specific performance should not have been granted because the contract is indefinite, ambiguous and one-sided. We have examined the contract and the evidence submitted upon these issues and find that it does not appear that these defenses were established as a matter of law. White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581 (1939); Biscayne Associates v. Carson, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 871.

Affirmed.
#### James Wesley HARKLEROAD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41299.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 6, 1972.

B. Anderson Mitcham, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Subsequently, under authority of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the Supreme Court of Florida in Anderson v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (Fla.1972), reduced appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. After argument, and upon careful consideration of the record and briefs in this case, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the conviction, as previously modified by reduction of sentence, is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000947429
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL WIRE GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,032)
<INVENTORY>                                     69,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,869
<PP&E>                                         297,533
<DEPRECIATION>                               (138,204)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 574,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,149
<BONDS>                                        334,602
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   574,584
<SALES>                                        290,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               290,122
<CGS>                                          214,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  214,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,799
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,737
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,634
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,747)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,624
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Paul S. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Robert WARD and Pam Ward, Appellants, v. PARADISE VILLAGE, Appellee.

No. 72-905.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 17, 1973.

Richard P. Condon, Tampa, for appellants.

Marvin Solomon, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties this case is hereby reversed.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION OF 10-Q REPORT
                                       OF
                     BIRNER DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
                    FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
         Officer of Birner Dental Management Services, Inc. This Certification
         is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
         Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Birner Dental Management
         Services, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004.

2.       We certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
         that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of Birner Dental Management Services, Inc.

               This Certification is executed as of May 11, 2004.

                            By: /s/ Frederic W.J. Birner
                                ----------------------------------------------
                          Name: Frederic W.J. Birner
                         Title: Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
                                and Director
                                (Principal Executive Officer)



                            By:  /s/ Dennis N. Genty
                                 ---------------------------------------------
                          Name:  Dennis N. Genty
                         Title:  Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer
                                 and Director
                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting 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 the typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Birner Dental Management Services,
Inc. and will be retained by Birner Dental Management Services, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT CO. v. Vernon L. CALDWELL, Jr., et al.

No. 61473.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Vernon L. Caldwell, Jr., et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Terrebonne. 353 So.2d 371.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
251 La. 75

#### UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY v. P. E. GREEN and Wesley Green.

No. 48882.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

*Oct 20,*1967.

In re: Mrs. Janet Green and Wesley Green applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Morehouse. 201 So.2d 329.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
252 La. 168

#### William HICKS v. William BARROW.

No. 49246.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: William Hicks applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 208 So.2d 417.

Writs refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the judgment is correct.
.
mee ee ee ee ee ee

‘
— — - 7 =
‘
‘
. 4 >
“ 3 “9 "I
‘ ;
. \ , > ° -
A A er I i A TTT

amt. Banélts eos |

as hancher . |

oD AvLeo- Co villosa Bs :
Afr ee tea! 3 7}

CRO

YK wo \y \ al

TDS lation _ - PSS
Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
fusn-ex108_898.htm



Exhibit 10.8

AMENDMENT No. 1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of June 25, 2020 (“Agreement”) is made between Fusion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Company”), and John Valliant (the “Executive”) and is effective as of February 19, 2021 (the “Effective Date”).

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into the Agreement and now wish to clarify the use of the exchange rate as it may be applied to the Executive’s cash compensation.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for payment of $10.00 CAD and the promises se forth below, the parties confirm and amend certain terms and conditions of the Agreement as follows:

1.    The third sentence in Section 2 (a) (Compensation and Related Matters) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence: “At the Company’s sole discretion, the Base Salary will be converted into and payable as Canadian dollars at the prior calendar year’s average exchange rate.”

2.    The parties acknowledge and agree that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and will remain as such except as may be expressly altered by this Amendment.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective on the Effective Date.

 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
FUSION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.




 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
 /s/Maria D. Stahl

	
Its:
	
 
	
 Chief Legal Officer




 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 

	
EXECUTIVE

	
 

	
 /s/John Valliant

	
John Valliant
SERVED SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

romiiOK 

D-ERATIOI 

1 A '< 20 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0486 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows : 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before November 4,2011, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute they 

shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner... 

)odwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-0486 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2Wl000* 

ONECOPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Representative 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complaincmt's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton,WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodvwn, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in personorby ejqiedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald FRANK and Robert Grant.

No. 60359.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Maurice T. Hattier, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for Robert Grant.

Ronald J. Rakosky, New Orleans, for Gerald Frank.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Henry P. Julien, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CALOGERO, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

TATE, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by CALOGERO, J.

CALOGERO, Justice,

dissenting.

Defendants, acknowledged heroin addicts, were convicted of selling five tin foil packets of heroin (retail consumption quantities) to an undercover police officer. They were each sentenced to life imprisonment.

While perhaps not relevant to guilt or innocence, the degree of defendants’ in*1330volvement and relative participation in drug trafficking is a factor affecting culpability of which in my view the jury should have been made aware, in light of defendants’ effort in this regard.

I would find merit in assignment of error number two, because I believe that cross examination, a right of large proportions to put it minimally, was improperly restricted. Defendants should have been allowed to develop facts concerning the various levels of heroin distribution. Recently we allowed the state to produce testimony concerning international trafficking in heroin with obvious prejudice to a non-addict defendant in *State v. Franklin,*353 So.2d 1315 (La.1977). Whatever the technical distinctions between the two cases, we seem to adopt a double standard when we refuse to allow these defendants, where possibly to their advantage, to show the jury that they are indeed very small fish in a rather large pond.

For these reasons I dissent.
##### 



EXHIBIT 5 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory C. Wilkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of Barrick Gold
Corporation, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold
Corporation;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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The 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 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
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 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 issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the 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 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 issuers
internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 19, 2004
    /s/ Gregory C. WilkinsName:
    Gregory C. WilkinsTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
SERVED: September 18, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

---·-----------

IN THE MATTER OF 

CLASSIC AIR AVIATION, LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAJ\-201 5-2438 

(Civil Penally Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

On September 5, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin transferred to the 

Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge 

Goodwin to the undersigned. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing conference are suspended 

until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect absent further order. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie J\. Y odcr. 

Chief Administrative L~...-uu 

Attachment-Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W I 000 1 

Kacie M. Bush, Operations Manager 

Classic Air Aviation, LLC, Respondent 

4805 E. Falcon Drive 

Mesa, AZ 85215 

TEL: 602-574-5376 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind A venue Southwest 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, ChiefAdministrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S. E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docke\ No.\: i\t\-2()\ S-2438 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2WIOOO, Washington. 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430. 

2
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. N-370.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 25, 1971.

Philip C. Beverly, and William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant.

James E. Cobb, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, James A. Bistline, Gen. Counsel, and R. Allan Wimbish, Gen. Atty, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has appealed a summary final judgment rendered in favor of defendant. Implicit in the judgment is the holding that the trackage contract between the parties, pursuant to which plaintiff seeks a judgment for unpaid rental, was effectively cancelled by defendant as of July 1, 1967, after which date no further rentals accrued in plaintiff’s favor. The critical question involved in the action is a determination of when the trackage contract was effectively cancelled and defendant’s obligations thereunder for the payment of rent terminated. This question is one of law and is controlled by the trackage contract as modified by a ruling of the Interstate Commerce Commission imposed as a condition of the corporate merger sought by plaintiff and accepted by it. It is our conclusion that the construction placed upon the contract documents by the trial court which resulted in the holding challenged herein accords with the essential requirements of law. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.