alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AUS

- 6204839

- 1 521106/1 

# No. 03

- 15

- 00259

- CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________ BECKY, LTD.

, Appellant

V

.
THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK, STEPHEN THOMAS, MATT POWELL, MITCH FULLER, LYLE GRIMES, LOWELL MOORE, JON LUX, AND DON TRACY

, Appellee s

_____________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________ __
APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE TO MOTION TO FILE POST

- SUBMISSION LETTER BRIEF

______________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Becky, Ltd. (“Becky”) hereby files its supplemental certificate of

conference to its motion to file post

- submission letter brief. Becky filed its Motion

for Leave to File Post

- Submi ssion Brief on December 11, 2015. The undersigned

was not able to confer with counsel for Appellees before filing, and theref ore,

indicated that it did not know if its motion for leave was opposed or unopposed. ACCEPTED 03-15-00259-CV 8239139 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/15/2015 10:53:23 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

AUS

- 6204839

- 1 521106/1 Counsel for Appellees have since contacted the undersigned and indicated they do

not oppose Becky’s motion. Becky will not oppose leave for Appellees to file any

respon se to the letter brief.

Respectfully submitted,

HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP

By /s/ Elizabeth G. Bloch E LIZABETH G. B LOCH State Bar No. 02495500 Heidi.bloch@huschblackwell.com 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 Austin, Texas 78701

- 4093 (512) 472

- 5456 (Telephone) (512) 479

- 1101 (Facsimile)

Leonard B. Smith State Bar No. 18643100 lsmith@leonardsmithlaw.com P.O. Box 684633 Austin, Texas 78768 (512) 914

- 3732 (Telephone) (512) 532

- 6446 (Facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned certifies that she conferred with counsel for Appellees after Appellant filed its Motion for Leave to File Post

- Submission Brief on December 11, 201 5. They indicated they do not oppose the motion

/s/ Elizabeth G. Bloch E LIZABETH G. B LOCH3

AUS

- 6204839

- 1 521106/1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoi ng document was served on the 15 th day of December

, 2015, via the Court’s electronic filing system a nd/or email to the following counsel of record:

Cobby Caputo ccaputo@bickerstaff.com Bradley B. Young byoung@bickerstaff.com Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP 3711 South MoPac Expressway Building One, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746

/s/ Elizabeth G. Bloch
**Crop Am**  **ount** Commodities 2,419 NPMA food processing structures 200 Mills and processors 74,510 Dried Cured Pork 3,730 Total Post Harvest 80,859 Cucurbits 59,500 Eggplant - field 6,904 Forest nursery 34,230 Nursery stock - fruit, nut, flower 1,591 Orchard replant 18,324 Ornamentals 48,164 Peppers - field 28,366 Strawberry

- field 678,004 Strawberry

runners 3,752 Tomatoes - field 54,423 Sweet potato slips 8,709 Total Pre-Plant 941,967 **Total Use Limit** 1,022,826 **as % of baseline** 4.0% **CRITICA L USES in DECISION XXII/6 (kg)** Pre-plant total use (as percent of total use) 92.1% Total pre-plant CUA Allowances 699,683

Post-harvest total use (as percent of total use) 7.9% Total postharvest CUA Allowances 60,061 Sum of above percentages 100.0% **Total CUAs 759,744** 

**As % of baseline 3.0%**  **CUA A** **llocation Calculations**

**PRE-PLA NT vs. POST-HA** **RVEST CUA A**  **LLOCA**

**TIONS (kg) Company**  **Relative Share**  **Pre-Plant**

**Al location**  **Post Harvest**

**Al location**  Chemtura Corp. 0.6077 425,197 36,499 Alberm arle 0.2499 174,851 15,009 ICL-IP (Ameribrom) 0.1381 96,626 8,294 Trical 0.0043 3,009 258 Subtotal 1.0000 699,683 60,061 Total (kg) 759,744

**Company Specific CUA A** **llowances**

**Proposed CUE A llowance A** **llocation**Albem arle ICL-IP America Bill Clark Pest Control, Inc. Industrial Fumigant Co. Burnside Services, Inc. Pacific Ag Cardinal Professional Products Pest Fog Sales Corp. Chemtura Corp. Prosource One Crop Production Services Reddick Fumigants Degesch America, Inc. Trical, Inc. Helena Chemical Co. Trident Agricultural Products Hendrix and Dail Univar Hy-Yield Products, LLC We stern Fumigation Total (kilograms) 263,082

**CRITICA L STOCK A**  **LLOCA TIONS** 

Note: Specific company stocks data are CBI material. EPA has company specific data in the classified portion of the docket.
MEMORANDUM 

From: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

To: EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495) 

Date: August, 2015 

Subject: LCOE Costs from Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Units 

Costing Approach 

The EPA used the costs used the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to compare the levelized 

costs of electricity of simple cycle and combined cycle combustion turbines at different percentage 

electric sales and natural gas prices. The EPA also added cost and efficiency impacts to estimate the 

impacts of starting/stopping and operation at part-load conditions.
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed registration statements on Form S-3 (File No.'s 333-44367,
333-95333 and 333-53656) and Form S-8 (File No.'s 33-95194, 33-95192, 33-98688,
and 333-35540).


                                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 23, 2001
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Rolon, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered on November 10, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of from *1216.*to 25 years imprisonment, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to an indeterminate term of from 6 to 12 years, and, except as thus modified, affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after an undercover "buy and bust” operation, in which he sold two vials of "crack” to an undercover officer in exchange for $20 of pre-recorded "buy money”, and was shortly thereafter found in possession of that pre-recorded "buy money” at the time of his arrest.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and bearing in mind that credibility is a matter to be determined by the trier of facts, we conclude that defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), and that the verdict was supported by the weight of the credible evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). We reject defendant’s claim that the undercover officers’ testimony was not credible or *253that there existed discrepancies and inconsistencies with respect to the testimony of the People’s remaining witnesses. Nor was it required that chemical analysis of the narcotics be gauged against a " 'known standard’ ”. *(People v Flores,*138 AD2d 512, *lv denied*72 NY2d 859.)

Similarly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a brief adjournment, as requested by defense counsel, in anticipation of a prospective defense witness, and in thereafter refusing to reopen the defense case for that witness’ testimony when he appeared, for the first time, after the completion of the defense summations *(Matter of Anthony M.,*63 NY2d 270, 283; *People v Munoz,*153 AD2d 281, 285, *lv denied*75 NY2d 922).

With respect to the trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling, we find no abuse of discretion in permitting inquiry into the defendant’s two prior convictions for robbery and attempted robbery in the first degree where the prior convictions involved crimes of an entirely different nature from that for which the defendant was being tried, pre-dated the crime at issue by less than four years, and where the defense failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the defendant would be unduly prejudiced by questions concerning his criminal past *(People v Greer,*42 NY2d 170, 176).

We find, however, that the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated.

Finally, we have considered the defendant’s *pro se*arguments, to the extent preserved, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
#### Russell A. PIERCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellee.

No. 81194.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 4.

June 1, 1993.

Jess Horn, Jess Horn Inc., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Michelle R. Day, Dept, of .Public Safety, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TAYLOR, Judge.

Pierce seeks review of an order suspending his driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol on the grounds that the intoxilyzer machine’s test was not administered in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence. We hold the test was properly administered and affirm.

On July 3, 1992, Pierce was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and consented to taking the intoxilyzer test. Pierce’s test results were 0.17 g/210L alcohol concentration. He requested an administrative hearing at the conclusion of which his license revocation was sustained.

Pierce then appealed to the district court which in turn held a hearing and affirmed the revocation. It is from this order that Pierce appeals on the single issue of wheth*1018er the test was administered in accordance with the rules adopted by the Board of Tests. 47 O.S.1991 § 759(C).

It is uncontroverted that the Board’s regulations provide that to test the instrument’s accuracy, a test of a controlled sample of known concentration must register sample test results that are within one one-hundredths gram per two hundred ten liters ( + or — 0.01 g/210L). It is also uncontested that the Board’s regulations provide that such results be reduced to two digits to the right of the decimal point.

Pierce contends that to be accurate a sample test result must be three digits to the right of the decimal point. The control test result in Pierce’s case was .11. Pierce contends that in order to be accurate the machine’s numerical tests results must be within a plus or minus .01, and that .110, or any figure up to .119, would not be within the tolerance limits of a plus or minus .01 as set by the Board.

The machine used in the testing of Pierce was capable of only reading numerical sample tests results two digits to the right of the decimal point. In this case of first impression on the very narrow issue presented by Pierce, we hold that accuracy beyond two digits is not required by the statutory and regulatory provisions of Section 759(C). *See State v. Acosta,*112 Or.App. 191, 827 P.2d 1368 (1992).

AFFIRMED.

BOUDREAU, P.J., and STUBBLEFIELD, J., concur.
----

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2005/C 62/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision: 

Member State [Region]: Italy

Aid No: N 584/2003

Title: Extension of delivery deadline for 2 Ro-Ro TP ships (numbers C.209 and C.210)

Objective [sector]: Shipbuilding

Legal basis: Articolo 2 della Legge n. 522 del 28.12.1999

Aid intensity or amount: 9 %

Other information: The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

----
MPS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Timothy D. Payne, certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form 10-K of MPS Group,  Inc.  as
     amended by this Form 10-K/A;

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.   The  registrant'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 registrant 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
          registrant,  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 registrant'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  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual  report)  that has  materially  affected,  or is
          reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting; and

4.   The registrant's  other certifying  officer and I have disclosed,  based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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  registrant'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  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: January 16, 2004               /s/Timothy D. Payne
                                     Timothy D. Payne
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2465 CHARLES VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust; JUDY VAUGHAN, individually and as Trustee for CJC Enterprise Trust, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and CJC ENTERPRISE TRUST; ELC TRUST; VAUGHAN TRUST; CJC PERSONNEL TRUST, Plaintiffs, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-569-5-H(3)) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Charles Vaughan, Judy Vaughan, Appellants Pro Se. Laurie Allyn Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Charles Vaughan and Judy Vaughan appeal from the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny their petition to quash administrative summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Vaughan v. United States , No. CA-02-569-5- H(3) (E.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2002). 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
----

----

I Meddelanden

Kommissionen

----

Eurons växelkurs (1)

31 januari 2005

(2005/C 25/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Källa: Referensväxelkurs offentliggjord av Europeiska centralbanken.

----

----

MEDDELANDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN

Meddelande till importörer: Världshandelsorganisationens tvistlösningsförfarande rörande Förenta staternas beskattning av utländska försäljningsbolag (Foreign Sales Corporations) – Återbetalning eller eftergift av tilläggstullar

(2005/C 25/02)

Den 7 maj 2003 bemyndigade Världshandelsorganisationens (WTO) tvistlösningsorgan gemenskapen att införa motåtgärder på upp till 4 043 miljoner US-dollar i form av tilläggstullar (värdetullar på 100 %) på vissa produkter med ursprung i Förenta staterna. Den 8 december 2003 antog gemenskapen rådets förordning (EG) nr 2193/2003 om införande av tilläggstullar på import av vissa produkter med ursprung i Amerikas förenta stater (1).

Som en följd av att Förenta staterna 2004 antagit Jobs Creation Act antog gemenskapen rådets förordning (EG) nr 171/205 om upphävande av tillämpningen av de tilläggstullar som infördes genom rådets förordning (EG) nr 2193/2003. Förordning 171/2005 beräknas träda i kraft samma dag som den offentliggörs i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning men är tillämplig, så tillvida som tillämpningen av tilläggstullar därigenom upphävs, från och med den 1 januari 2005.

Följaktligen skall från och med den 1 januari 2005 de tilläggstullar som infördes genom rådets förordning (EG) nr 2193 lagligen inte betalas. I enlighet med detta underrättas berörda parter härmed om att de kan ansöka om återbetalning eller eftergift av dessa tullar hos de nationella tullmyndigheter till vilka inbetalning skett eller avses ske i enlighet med artikel 236 i gemenskapens tullkodex (2).

----

(1)EUT L 328, 17.12.2003, s. 3.

(2)  Rådets förordning (EEG) nr 2913/92, 12.10.1992 (EGT L 253, 11.10.1993). Förordningen senast ändrad genom akten om villkoren för anslutning av Republiken Tjeckien, Republiken Estland, Republiken Cypern, Republiken Lettland, Republiken Litauen, Republiken Ungern, Republiken Malta, Republiken Polen, Republiken Slovenien och Republiken Slovakien till de fördrag som ligger till grund för Europeiska unionen och om anpassning av de fördragen (EUT L 236, 23.9.2003, s. 33).

----

III Upplysningar

Rådet

----

Förlängning av giltighetstiden för de listor över lämpliga kandidater som fastställdes efter följande allmänna uttagningsprov: Rådet/LA/364, Rådet/LA/365, Rådet/LA/381, Rådet/LA/384, Rådet/LA/385, Rådet/LA/386, Rådet/LA/398, Rådet/LA/399, Rådet/C/389 och EUR/C/120

(2005/C 25/03)

Genom beslut av ställföreträdande generalsekreteraren för Europeiska unionens råd den 22 december 2004 skall giltighetstiden för de förteckningar över godkända sökande som fastställdes efter följande allmänna uttagningsprov förlängas till och med den 1 januari 2006:

----
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.6


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-38521, 333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527,
333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539, 333-48167 and 333-61395), Form S-4
(No's. 333-61401 and 333-47926) and Form S-3 (No. 333-64979) of Security Capital
Group Incorporated of our report dated 14 March 2001 relating to the financial
statements of Security Capital European Realty, which is included in the
Security Capital Group Incorporated Annual Report on Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers S.a.r.l.             Luxembourg, 16 March 2001
Reviseur d'entreprises
Represented by



Pascal Rakovsky
Holcim (US) Inc. Phone 406 285 3241 t'Holcim 4070 Trident Road Fax 4062853100

Three Forks, MT 59752 www.holcim.com/us 

June 22, 2011 

US EPA Region VIII 

Attn: Vanessa Hinkle, 8P-AR 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

RE:	 RESPONSE TO REQUEST - UPDATED INFORM.lo,T!ON FOR BART 

Dear Ms. Hinkle: 

This is in response to the letter dated May 18, 2011, from your offices, requesting BART 

updated information. Holcim submitted a SNCR cost estimate to your offices in July 2008. 

Since that time, Holcim has installed thermocouples to determine the location of the proper 

temperature zone within the kiln for SNCR addition. Holcim is currently waiting for an 

approval from DEQ to proceed with the plan and formalize activities for a SNCR trial. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 406-285-4977. 

. ~~d/} . g Ganno.7. 

Environmental Manager 

ec:	 Meg Garakani 

Hector Ybanez 

Strength. Performance. Passion.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



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

(subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of LVFAR
Green Technology Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended April 30, 2013 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: June 19, 2013 | By: | /s/ Peter H. Tong                         
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Peter H. Tong, Chief Executive Officer and
|                     |     | Chief Financial Officer                   



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.



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.
#### Dennis Leonard ALBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 13, 1971.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Harvell v. State, 155 Fla. 556, 20 So.2d 801 (1945); and Dallas v. State, 170 So.2d 486 (Fla.App.2d 1965).

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.