alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH LAMPKIN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-98-84, CA-00-813-AM) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Lampkin, Appellant Pro Se. Francine Davis, David Jay Ignall, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Joseph Lampkin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lampkin , Nos. CR-98-84; CA-00-813-AM (E.D. Va. May 26, 2000). In addition, we decline to address the issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
1

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 30, 2012

Subject: EPA – Felman Corporation Teleconference Summary (June 7, 2012)

From: Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated

To: Conrad Chin, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

I. Introduction:

A conference call was held on June 7, 2012 to discuss the status and content of the stack test 

protocol being developed by Felman Production for planned stack testing in July. Felman 

and Eramet Marietta (EMI) are coordinating their upcoming particulate matter compliance 

tests in order to obtain additional data on manganese, mercury, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid (HCl). The plants are collecting 

this information on a voluntary basis with the intent of providing data for EPA to consider in 

setting stack limits for the final Ferroalloys Production National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). This memo provides an overview of the issues 

discussed.

II. Participants:

Felman Production, Inc. John Konrady, Rich Lunn, Shawn McCutchan, Robert Powell

Beveridge & Diamond: Amy Lincoln

Policy Navigation Group: Troy Hillier

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection: James Robertson

EPA/OAQPS: Conrad Chin, Jason Dewees, Chuck French, Stef Johnson, Robin Segall, 

Peter Westlin

EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA): Beth Friedman

III.Summary of Discussions:

The following topics were discussed.

Felman and Eramet are coordinating development of their test protocols to ensure 

they collect comparable data. They believe this will address issues that exist with 

the current data set, where some pollutants were collected using different 
2

methods, and address the plants’ concerns whether the previous source tests 

conducted by them correctly adjusted for CO2 concentration. 

The plants are using the test protocol from the 2010 information collection request 

as a starting point in developing their protocols. EPA provided the following 

comments on that protocol:

o The plants should disregard the direction to provide a correction to 2% CO2. 

o The plants should provide information on production rate data during the test.

o The plants should test PAHs at the stack at both plants.

o For mercury testing, the plants should use Method 30B.

The EPA offered to send the plants a list of suggested test methods for their 

review.

The group discussed the potential to test for fugitive emissions at the roof. 

Felman noted that there are several roof vents (dog boxes) that are used to house 

fans. It is not physically possible to access these vents from the exterior, and 

interior access is prevented by the movement of the crane. There is also no 

measurable velocity at these vents. They added that emissions are the result of 

ladle raking, which is a limited event (15 minutes). The EPA noted that it would 

be possible to develop a viable testing protocol given time and resources. 

Felman noted that they are considering closing some of these roof vents 

permanently to eliminate fugitive emissions from them.
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Elka Yaron, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Eco Planet Corp. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2013 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Eco Planet Corp. as of and for the periods presented in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanying such quarterly report and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.




Date: August 2, 2013
By:
/s/ ELKA YARONName:
Elka YaronTitle:
Chief Executive and Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**Certification**

I, Bennie H. Duck,certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K/A of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.     The Company’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theCompany and based on such evaluation:

a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

c)   Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

5.     The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 27, 2007
|   | By: /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck           |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
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 Globetech Ventures Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended September 30, 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. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





|Date:  March 26, 2004 |    
|--------------------- | ---
|                      | /s/



| | Name:  | Dilbagh Gujral         
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |       
| |       
| | /s/   



| | Name:  | Roland Vetter          
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Seymour Levine et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*City of Port Jervis et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 16, 1958.

*MacIntyre, Burke <0 Downey (John V. Downey*of counsel), and *William P. Gregg, Corporation Counsel,*for defendants.

*M. Benjamin Baron*for plaintiffs.

*575Aboet Steueb, J.

Defendants move for a change of venue to Orange County. As one of the defendants is a city in Orange County and the others are police officers of that city, the right to transfer the case is absolute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 182-a).

Plaintiffs, however, cross-move to retain the venue here on the grounds that a fair trial cannot be had in Orange County and that the convenience of witnesses would best be served by a trial here. The second ground is without merit. If trial is had in Orange County, plaintiff and his witnesses will doubtless be inconvenienced. If trial is held here the same will apply to defendants. No balance in favor of plaintiff is shown, nor are any impartial witnesses involved. As plaintiff’s application is really one to change the venue back to this county, the grounds should be sufficient to warrant a change of venue. In this case the convenience of witnesses has not been shown to be such a ground.

The evidence as regards a fair trial is somewhat more substantial. The incidents out of which plaintiffs’ claims arose were reported in the local press. Every report states as fact the version of the incidents for which defendants contend. Furthermore, the plaintiff was arrested and pleaded guilty to a criminal charge. The remarks of the Magistrate, who is also the Corporation Counsel for the defendant city, were extensively reported. The difficulties of an objective viewpoint by one who serves in a dual capacity were unfortunately illustrated.

Defendants do not deny the prejudicial nature of these articles. They do claim that they will have no effect on the trial. It is pointed out that the newspapers in which the articles were published have a local circulation, not extending throughout the county. An attempt is made to show that only a small number of talesmen on any panel would come from the area in which these newspapers circulate, but either from mistake or ingenuousness the proper figures from which the conclusion could be drawn are not given.

Findings of local prejudice on the basis of newspaper articles are becoming quite rare as the waning influence of newspapers is more generally recognized. In large cities experience shows that there is little difficulty in obtaining jurors entirely free from any such influence. Of course, only one familiar with the local situation could say whether this is true in any other community. But such claims should be examined with some minuteness. In the instant case one of the articles is featured by the announcement that this case is being defended by an *576insurance company. Surely, this is a factor which would *go*a long way toward destroying any prejudice in favor of the local defendants.

Motion granted, cross motion denied.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11562-11563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4532]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 11563]]

amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Minority Biomedical 
Research Support Behavioral Applications.
    Date: March 19, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Room 3An18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
Room 3An18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68c898e88958988948ea6888f818b95c8888f8ec8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f69c999e98859998849eb6989f919b85d8989f9ed8919980">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4532 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION 

ASSOCIATION, MONTANA 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 

CENTER, GRAND CANYON TRUST, 

SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, OUR 

CHILDREN’S EARTH FOUNDATION, 

PLAINS JUSTICE, POWDER RIVER 

BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL, SIERRA 

CLUB, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LISA JACKSON, in her official capacity as 

Administrator, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency,

Defendant,

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. Henry R. 

Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality,

 Intervenor-Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

 1: 11-cv-01548 (ABJ)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that the State of Arizona, ex rel. Henry R. Darwin, 

Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Intervenor-Defendant in the 

above named case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit from the Partial Consent Decree entered in this action on the 30th

Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 42 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Day of March, 2012.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of June, 2012.

THOMAS C. HORNE

 Arizona Attorney General

/s/ James T. Skardon

Joseph P. Mikitish

Arizona Bar No. 013972

James T. Skardon

Arizona Bar No. 006973

Assistant Attorneys General

Environmental Enforcement Section

1275 West Washington Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 542-8535

joseph.mikitish@azag.gov

james.skardon@azag.gov

Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant

State of Arizona

2704098/cg

Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 42 Filed 06/27/12 Page 2 of 2
stbernard_8k-ex1002.htm










Exhibit 10.2

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 







 


THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of April 28, 2010 (this "Amendment"), is entered into by and between Thalia Gietzen (hereinafter called "Employee"), and St. Bernard Software, Inc. (hereinafter the "Employer"), with reference to the following:


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Employee and Employer entered into that certain employment agreement made as of June 15, 2009 (the “Agreement”); 


 


WHEREAS, Employee and Employer desire by this Amendment to amend, modify and supplement the Agreement as set forth herein, effective April 1, 2010 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties to this Amendment, Employee and Employer hereby agree as follows:


 


1.  Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein as though set forth in full herein.


 


2. Performance Bonus.  Commencing on the Amendment Effective Date and ending at the end of the fourth quarter of 2010, Employer shall pay Employee a quarterly performance bonus (if any), not to exceed $5,000 in the aggregate per quarter, based on specific performance targets to be established by the board of directors.







3.  Original Agreement. Except as specifically herein amended, the Agreement is and shall remain in full force and effect according to the terms thereof. In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and this Amendment, this Amendment shall control.







4.  Entire Agreement.  This Amendment coupled with the Agreement contain the entire agreement between Employer and Employee relating to Employee’s employment with Employer, and they supersede all previous agreements, whether oral or written.







5.  Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.


 


The rest of the page is left intentionally blank.  Signature page to follow.


 






  





  











  













 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties as of the date first referenced above.


 


 


"Employee"


 


/s/ Thalia Gietzen


Thalia Gietzen












"Employer"


 


St. Bernard Software, a Delaware corporation 


 







 


By: /s/ Louis E. Ryan


 


Print Name:  Louis E. Ryan


 


Its: (title)  CEO
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




The
undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of
BEFUT International Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
      September 30, 2010 (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 results of operations of the
      Company.







Dated:  November
      15, 2010/s/
      Hongbo CaoName:
      Hongbo CaoPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)


This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 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 §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ) FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION) ) Complainant, ) 

# RECE\VED DEC i 

## 9 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

) FAA Docket No. NotAssigned VS. ) ) FAA Case No. 2014SW700042 ) (Civil Penalty Action) ) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATJON ) FDMS No. 2014-0864 ) Respondent. ) Judge: Unassigned


# _______________________ )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Comes now Allan H. Horowitz, and hereby files this Notice ofAppearance in the abovecaptioned matter and states thathe is representing RespondentFederal Express Corporation 

### in this
case. 

### 1'/, Dated thisJL day ofDecember, 2014.
Respectfully submitted, McKenna Long and Aldridge, LLP

# By:~~H!irt!~ McKenna .Long &

# ::eLL~ 1900 

### K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 496-7356 ahorowitz@mckennalong.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I herebycertifythat onthisdate I served byFederal Express overnight delivery the original and one copy of Respondent's Notice of Appearance in 

### Federal Aviation Administration vs. Federal Express Corporation, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW WilbLU" Wright Building

- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 In addition, 

### I hereby certifythat 

### I have on this date served a 

### true copy ofthe above, by Federal Express overnight delivery, addressed to:
Mr. James Archier, Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 76137

Dated tltis

# l1fday ofDecember, 2014.
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-127351-01 and No. 333-156476-01) of Telecom Italia Capital S.A. and Telecom Italia S.p.A. (as Guarantor) of our report dated April 11, 2011 relating to the financial statementsand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Telecom Italia S.p.A., which appears in this Form 20-F. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial and Statistical Information” in thisForm 20-F. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers S.p.A. 

 

Rome, Italy 

April 11, 2011
Order entered April 14, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00826-CR

No. 05-19-00828-CR

RUSSELL TODD WILSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1834038-U, F-172066-U

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s April 13, 2020 motion to extend the time for 

filing its tendered brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief filed as of 

the date of this order. 

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

PRESIDING JUSTICE