alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cEO SI 4 ?



### • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 

### 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

# OCT 112012

Mr. Richard W. Corey Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812
Dear Mr. Corey:
On September 21, 2012, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan. We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they 

## fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 51, Appendix V. APCD/AQMD Rule# Rule Title Antelope Valley 107 Certification ofSubmissions and Emission Statements Antelope Valley 1 151 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations Butte County 300 Open Burning, Prohibitions 

### and Exemptions Feather River 10.1 New Source Review PlacerCounty Reg. III Open Burning PlacerCounty 233 Biomass Boilers Sacramento Metropolitan 417 Wood 

### Burniflg Appliances Sacramento Metropolitan 421 Mandatory Episodic Curtailmentof Wood 

### and Other Solid Fuel Burning San Diego County 67.1 1 Wood Products Coating Operations Santa Barbara County 102 Definitions Santa BarbaraCounty 202 Exemptions to Rule 201 Santa Barbara

### County 321 Solvent Cleaning Machines and Solvent Cleaning Santa 

### BarbaraCounty 330 Surface Coating ofMetal Parts 

### and Products 

### Santa Barbara County 337 Surface Coating ofAerospace Vehicles and Components Santa 

### Barbara County 349 Polyester Resin Operations Santa Barbara County 353 Adhesives and Sealants South Coast 461 Gasoline Transferand Dispensing Yolo-Solano 3.24 Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration

Pri,,tedon Recycled Paper

### This addresses all revisions inthis submittal. Inthe coming months we will review the complete revisions for actionpursuantto Clean AirAct section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review shouldbe directedto 

## Cynthia G. Allen at (415) 947-4120. Sincerely,



## omr Dire • 

### Air Division

cc: Mr. Eldon Heaston, EQ AntelopeValley AQMD Mr. W. James Wagoner, APCO Butte County AQMD Mr. DaveValler, APCO FeatherRiverAQMD Mr. Tom Christofk, APCO PlacerCounty APCD Mr. Larry 

### Greene, APCOIEO Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Mr. Robert Kard, APCO 

## San Diego County APCD Mr. Dave 

## Van Mullem, Director/APCO Santa

### Barbara 

## County APCD 

### Dr. Barry 

### Wallerstein, EO South CoastAQMD Mr. MatEhrhardt, APCO Yolo-Solano AQMD Mr. Michael 

## Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluation Section Stationary Source Division
Order entered February 12, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01311-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.A.A. AND K.D.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-52696-06

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 15, 2014 motion for extension of time to file brief 

concurrently tendered. The motion was held pending a response from appellant regarding the timeliness 

of his appeal. On January 31, 2014, we received appellant’s response. In his response, appellant asserts

the notice of appeal, which was filed one day late but within the fifteen-day grace period allowed under 

rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, was timely filed under the “mailbox rule.” See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.2(b), 26.3. Attached to appellant’s letter is a certified mail receipt and a United States Postal 

Service tracking sheet reflecting appellant filed his notice of appeal within the time allowed under rule 

26.1(a). See id. 26.1(a). Although given an opportunity to reply, appellee has not replied. 

We consider the notice of appeal timely for jurisdictional purposes, given appellant’s proof. We 

GRANT appellant’s January 15th extension motion and ORDER the brief concurrently tendered filed as 

of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

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 of AXS-One Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of such officer's knowledge:



|                     |  | AXS-ONE INC.
|-------------------- |  | ------------
|Date: March 30, 2004 |  | By:         
|                     |  | By:         

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40292

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELVE TROY BENJAMIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CR-96-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel for Elve Troy Benjamin has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging that there

are no meritorious issues for appeal. Our independent review of

the briefs and record discloses no issue of arguable merit. 

Therefore, the motion of counsel to withdraw is GRANTED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Jfourtlj Court of Sppealsf

Sntonio,

October 2. 2013

No. 04-13-00196-CV

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Carlos Y. licnavides Jr.. an Incapacitated Person

Trial Court Case No. 201 1-PB6-OQ008I-L2

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and the majority of the judges

have determined that oral argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and

factual issues presented in the appeal. See Ti-x. R. APP. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral

argument are denied, and the cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on November 12.

2013. to the following panel: Justice Marion. Justice Martinez, and Justice Chapa. All parlies

will be notified of the Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with TEX. R. Al'P. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See TEX. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten 11(11

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on October 2. 2013.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF

court on this October 2. 2013.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

have hereunto set mv hand and affixed the seal of the said
Exhibit 10.1
------------


     Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Marsulex Inc. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David M. Gee, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Laurie Tugman, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of his knowledge, 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 result of
              operations of the Company.





By:   /s/ David M. Gee                       By:   /s/ Laurie Tugman
      ----------------------                       ----------------------
Name: David M. Gee                           Name: Laurie Tugman

Title: President and Chief                   Title: Executive Vice-President
       Executive Officer                            and Chief Financial Officer


Dated this 18th day of March, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 of Interstate Land Investors II Limited
Partnership (the Registrant), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey K. Harpel, General Partner and Principal
Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, 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 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 Registrant. By:
    /s/ Jeffrey K. HarpelJeffrey K. HarpelSenior Vice PresidentISC Realty Corporation,General Partner andPrincipal Financial Officerof the RegistrantApril 9, 2004
Exhibit
      31.2





CERTIFICATION




I,
      Mary
      Desmond, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2006,
      of Techprecision 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 registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;




4.
      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 we have:




a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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 fourth fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
      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:




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.




Dated:
                June 13, 2007
            
            /s/ Mary
                DesmondMary
                DesmondChief
                Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 18, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00497

- CV

Edwin K. Lang, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Public Safety and Steven C. McCraw, Director of Texas Dept. of Public Safety, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the d istrict court on July 9, 2012. Having

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

in the district court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the district court’s judgment

. The

appellant shall pa y all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES
------------

Triathlon Broadcasting of Tri-Cities, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Spokane, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Colorado Springs, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Wichita, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Omaha, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Lincoln, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Tri-Cities Licensee, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Spokane Licensee, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Colorado Springs Licensee, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Wichita Licensee, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Omaha Licensee, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Lincoln Licensee, Inc.

Triathlon Broadcasting of Little Rock, Inc.

Triathlon Sports Programming, Inc.

TSPN, Inc.

Pinnacle Sports Productions, LLC

4630 Realty, Inc.
#### The State, ex rel. Rhinehart, *v.*Celebrezze, Dir.

(No. 30682

Decided June 26, 1946.)

*25
      *Mr. Saul S. Bishincl*and *Mr. Morton M. Stotter,*for relator.

*Mr. Lee C. Howley,*director of law, and *Mr. Charles W. White,*for respondent.

By the Court.

The single question presented is whether the answer constitutes a valid defense. The demurrer - admits all the allegations in the answer, which are well pleaded, and, therefore, concedes that the eligible list, from which the appointment which relator seeks must be made if the writ of mandamus is granted, expires June 5, 1946.

Section 486-12, G-eneral Code, provides as follows:

“Eligible List. From the returns of the examinations the commission shall prepare an eligible list of the persons whose general average standing upon examinations for such grade or class is not less than the minimum fixed by the rules of the commission and who are otherwise eligible; and such .persons shall take *26rank upon the eligible list as candidates in the'order of their relative excellence as determined by the examination without reference to priority of time of examination. In the event of two or more applicants receiving the same mark in an examination, priority in the time of application shall determine the order in which their names shall be placed on the eligible list. The term of eligibility of each list shall be fixed by the commission at not less than one year nor more than two years. When an eligible list is reduced to three names or less a new list shall be prepared.”

By force of this statutory provision, the eligible list from which appointments could be made terminated after two years and the Civil Service Commission of the city would not have been authorized to certify names from that list after June 5, 1946. Admittedly the relator has never been certified to the respondent by the Civil Service Commission, and it is only upon such certification that appointment ds authorized to be made.

It is well settled by the numerous decisions of this court that in exercising the extraordinary power of mandamus a court should take irito consideration the facts and conditions existing at the time it determines whether to issue a peremptory writ; if it should affirmatively appear that no wrong could possibly be remedied or no right could possibly be enforced or promoted, the writ will be refused. *State, ex rel. Stoer,*v. *Raschig, Dir.,*141 Ohio St., 477, 49 N. E. (2d), 56, and cases therein cited.

The demurrer to the answer is overruled and the writ of mandamus is denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.20

                              FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT



THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is entered into by and between Day Runner, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"),  and Alan R. Rachlin, a resident of Virginia who is
operating a consulting  business as a sole  proprietorship  ("Consultant"),  and
shall be effective as of April 21, 1999 (the "Effective Date").

         A. The Company  and  Consultant  entered  into a  consulting  agreement
effective as of April 22, 1997 (the  "Consulting  Agreement").  All  capitalized
terms not otherwise  defined shall have the meaning set forth in the  Consulting
Agreement.

         B. The Company and Consultant desire to amend the Consulting  Agreement
as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
set forth herein, the receipt of which are hereby acknowledged,  the Company and
Consultant agree as follows:

         1. The Term shall continue through and including May 21, 1999.

         2. All other terms and  conditions of the  Consulting  Agreement  shall
remain in full force and effect.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  executed  this First
Amendment to Consulting Agreement as of the effective date.

DAY RUNNER, INC.                                            ALAN R. RACHLIN



By:  /s/ Mark Vidovich                                      /s/ Alan R. Rachlin
    ---------------------------                             -------------------
       Mark Vidovich, Chairman                               Alan R. Rachlin
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements on Form S-3 of Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc. and the related
Prospectuses of our report dated February 10, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Williams Holdings of Delaware,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1996.
 
          Form S-3:  Registration No. 33-63495
                     Registration No. 333-20927
 
                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 26, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,253
<INVENTORY>                                    319,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,956
<PP&E>                                         985,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                 309,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,142,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          298,676
<BONDS>                                      1,075,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           346
<OTHER-SE>                                    (489,417)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,142,696
<SALES>                                      1,268,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,268,763
<CGS>                                          975,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  975,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60


</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alyssa Gayle Litwin

, * From the 266 th District Court

of E rath County,

Trial Court No. CR15315

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 225

- CR * June 30 , 20 2 2

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Alyssa Gayle Litwin’s motion to dismiss this appeal

and concludes that the motion should be granted

. Therefore, in accordance with

this court ’ s opi nion, the appeal is dismissed

.
[Cite as In re J.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 359, 2008-Ohio-6697.]

1 

IN RE J.H. ET AL. 

[Cite as In re J.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 359, 2008-Ohio-6697.]

Discretionary appeal accepted and judgment of the court of appeals reversed on 

the authority of In re T.R. 

(No. 2008-1812 — Submitted October 14, 2008 — Decided December 24, 2008.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, 

Nos. 22513 and 22514, 2008-Ohio-4324. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. 

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of 

In re T.R., 120 Ohio St.3d 136, 2008-Ohio-5219, 896 N.E.2d 1003. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Johnna Shia, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant, Montgomery County 

Children Services. 

______________________