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

Draft Company Annual Report: Summary of 

Reductions in Emissions and Product Content 
2010/15 PFOA Global Stewardship Program 

Draft Company Report: Summary of Reductions in Emissions an

SECTION 1: REPORT DATE October 20SECTION 2: COMPANY IDENTIFICATION 

2a 

Company Name Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd., Seimi ChemicaStreet Address 

SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS Reporting Period (use calendar year - e.g. Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005) Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2012 (Ye

3a 

Operations Chemical category

Releases to all environmental media from 

fluoropolymer and telomer manufacture 

kgs 

1 kgs of fluoropolymers kgs of category kgs of tel

kgs of ca

U.S. facilities

PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

0 na na 

Precursors na na na 

3b Non-U.S. facilities

PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

23.5 <1% negligible 

Precursors 0 na na 

3c

Please provide information on the methods, assumptions, uncertainties and detection limits for the data Release to the environment were based on actual measurement or mass balance. Analysis of representassumed to reflect average values. 
SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CONTENT 

Reporting Period (use calendar year - e.g. Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005) Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2012(Yea

4a Product type Fluoropolymer dispersions Other fluoropolymers1 

Production volume (kgs/year)2 (1) (7) (6

4b 

Operations Chemical category

Concentration3 % 

from b

Fluoropolymer 

dispersions4

(ppm wetweight) 

Other 

fluoropolymers

1,5

(ppb dry 

weight) 

Telomer based 

products6

(ppb dry weight ) 

Fluoropolymer 

dispersions

fluor

U.S. facilities

PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

0 0 na 100% 100% 

Precursors na na na na na 

4c Non-U.S. facilities

PFOA, PFOA salts and higher homologues 

0 18,000 Negligible as 

compared to precursors. 

100% 99.8% 

Precursors na na 50% (0-100%) na na 

4d Please provide information on the methods, assumptions, uncertainties and detection limits for the data 

1 Fluoropolymers manufactured with PFOA or related chemicals. 2 Use the following ranges: (1) Zero (2) > 0 – 10 kgs; (3) > 10 kgs – 100 kgs; (4) > 100 kgs – 1,000 kgs; (5) > 1,000 kgs – 10,0

kgs; (7) > 100,000 kgs – 1,000,000 kgs; (8) Over 1,000,000 kgs. 

3 Concentration should reflect the concentration of chemical in the product as sold by the reporting company. If the reporting com

concentration of chemical in the product as used by others – for example, as incorporated by dilution into a formulation – that addhelpful. 

4 This value should be expressed as a weighted average concentration and range. 5 This value should be expressed as a maximum concentration. 6 This value should be expressed as a simple (not weighted) average and range. 
Analytical methods were described in Appendix D when data were based on measured data. Some dat

balance. With regard to Telomer based products, non-polymeric low molecular weight chemicals wer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Charles J. Schreiber Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2007



/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.Chairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer and Director
USWO - Richard Williamson Secured Promissory Note II


    SECURED
      PROMISSORY NOTE

     

    $150,000 

     

    FOR
      VALUE
      RECEIVED, U.S. Wireless Online, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Maker”) promises to
      pay to the order of Richard Williamson, II (“Lender”) in lawful money of the
      United States of America, the principal sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand and
      no
      One-Hundredths Dollars ($150,000.00).

    


    This
      Note
      shall be for a term of 24 months from the date of execution and yield interest
      at a rate of 6% per annum. Interest will begin to accrue upon signing of the
      note with first payment due April 2007. The first nine payments shall be at
      a
      rate of $5,000 per month and the remaining payments shall be at a rate of $8,750
      per month.

    


    This
      Note
      is to be secured by the IElement Corporation pursuant to a Security Agreement
      dated December 27, 2006 between Richard Williamson, II and IElement
      Corporation.

    


    This
      Promissory Note is made pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated December
      21,
      2006 between U.S. Wireless Online, Inc., a Nevada corporation, DHR Technologies,
      Inc., a Florida corporation, Richard Williamson, II, an individual and IElement
      Corporation, a Nevada corporation, (the “Settlement Agreement”), the terms of
      which are incorporated herein by reference.

    


    The
      laws
      of the State of Nevada shall govern the form and essential validity of this
      Note.

    


    Time
      is
      of the essence with respect to all Maker’s obligations and agreements under this
      Note.

    


    This
      Note
      and all the provisions, conditions, promises, and covenants hereof shall inure
      to the benefit of Lender, his successors and assigns, and shall be binding
      upon
      the Maker, its successors and assigns. 

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused its duly authorized officers to execute
      this Note on its behalf as of the date and year first set forth
      above.

     

    U.S.
      Wireless Online, Inc.

    By:
      /s/
      Rick E. Hughes

    Name:
      Rick E. Hughes

    Title:
      President
#### Alvin Robert ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer Donald A. RAMSEY, and G. D. Sullenger, Central Division Jail, Los Angeles, California, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-2524.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 19, 1976.

*26Alvin Robert Alexander, in pro per.

Burt Pines, City Atty., and Burk Wiedner, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before WRIGHT and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON,* Senior District Judge.

*

 Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior United States District Judge, of the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s civil rights action against the police officers who arrested him on the state charges for which he is now incarcerated was dismissed without prejudice by the district court. The dismissal was prompted by the tolling of the applicable statute of limitations during appellant’s incarceration. *Ney*v. *State of California,*439 F.2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir. 1971), and the apparent inability of appellant to prosecute the action without the aid of counsel.

Appellant attempted to avoid the difficulties created by incarceration for the prosecution of the action by moving for the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Such motions are addressed to the district court’s sound discretion and they are granted only in exceptional circumstances. *United States v. Madden,*352 F.2d 792 (9th Cir. 1965).

But the district court did not rule on appellant’s motion. It should have. We therefore remand the case to the district court in order that it might have an opportunity to consider the question. In so doing, we imply no view of the merits of that question or of the underlying action. We do note, however, that incarceration does not foreclose access to the courts and the use of legal process to remedy civil wrongs. *Cancino v. Sanchez,*379 F.2d 808, 809 (9th Cir. 1967). *See also Peterson v. Nadler,*452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1971). This factor should be considered when passing on appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2509

___________

In re: Immedia Duplication Services, *

Inc., *

*

Debtor. *

--------------------------------------------- *

Randy Sullivan, as Trustee of the *

Immedia Duplication Services, *

Inc., Bankruptcy Estate, *

* Appeal from the United States

District

Appellant, * Court for the District of Minnesota.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

David Russ, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 1997

Filed: May 19, 1997

___________

Before MAGILL, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Trustee Randy Sullivan appeals the district court’s order upholding 1

the bankruptcy court’s finding that a transfer of assets from Immedia

Duplication Services, Inc., (Immedia) to David Russ was not fraudulent.

We affirm. 

Sullivan is the trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Immedia.

Immedia was in the business of duplicating electronic media and computer

software. In 1992, Immedia transferred its assets to Russ. Immedia later

filed an involuntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Sullivan filed an adversary proceeding, challenging the asset

transfer as a fraudulent transfer, a preferential transfer, and a

conversion. The bankruptcy court found for Russ, holding that the transfer

was not fraudulent. Sullivan appealed to the district court, which upheld

the bankruptcy court’s finding. Sullivan appeals, challenging the

bankruptcy court’s allocation of the burden of proof, its finding of no

fraud, its valuation of the transferred assets, and its method of

valuation. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and submissions, we

conclude that the district court’s ruling was correct. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

 ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### *** E.O. 12866 Review - Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

**Category Primary**  **Estimate Low Estimate**  **High Estimate Year**  **Dollar Discount** 

**Rate Period** 

**Covered Notes**  **Benefits** $10,100.0 NA NA 2012 7% 2015-2059 $11,800.0 NA NA 2012 3% 2015-2059 NA NA NA NA 7% NA NA NA NA NA 3% NA Qualitative **Costs** $1,300.0 NA NA 2012 7% 2015-2059 $1,400.0 NA NA 2012 3% 2015-2059 NA NA NA 7%

NA NA NA 3%

Qualitative **Transfers** NA NA NA 7%

NA NA NA 3% From/To From: To:

NA NA NA 7% NA NA NA 3%

From/To From: To: **Effects** State, Local, and/or Tribal Government

Small Business
Wages Growth Other Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) Federal Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) The cost analysis does not include any cost savings associated with the

small entity flexibilities Annualized Monetized ($millions/year)

Annualized Quantified **Estimates Units** 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) Annualized Quantified (tons)



### EPA conducted a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel as required by the RFA/SBREFA. The agencies are

proposing flexibilities for small businesses meeting the criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201 that would ensure the rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed flexibilities include additional lead time, less stringent standards, and reduced compliance requirements. This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). These rules will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs on vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these rules. Note: The present value of costs and benefits reflect costs/benefits that accrue over the lifetime of each 2018

-2029 MY vehicle, discounted back to 2015. Annualized benefits represent total benefits (including fuel savings, the social cost of carbon, energy

security, and other economic impacts) from EPA's model year analysis. The model year benefits presented here are also based on an average social cost of carbon (SCC) value derived using a 3% discount rate; as such, annualized SCC benefits always use a 3% discount rate. More details regarding the benefits can be found in the preamble Section IX.
Note: Annualized costs include costs for new technology along with compliance, R&D and increased maintenance. More details regarding costs can be found in preamble Section IX

.
No. 14-15-00251-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals

for the 

Fourteenth District of Texas

At Houston 



No. 1962516

In the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9 

Of Harris County, Texas 



DEREK JAMES STRIMBAN 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 



STATE’S THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

IN WHICH TO FILE AN APPELLATE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 

10.5(b)(1) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this 

motion for an extension of time in which to file the State’s Brief in this cause, and, 

in support thereof, presents the following: 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00251-cr

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

11/16/2015 4:31:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/16/2015 4:31:05 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1. On December 15, 2014, appellant pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of 

driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to 180 days in county jail, 

probated for a period of one year. 

2. Appellant filed a timely written notice of appeal. 

3. The State’s Brief is due on November 16, 2015.

4. On November 12, 2015, the State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal due to 

lack of jurisdiction. 

5. An extension of time in which to file the State’s Brief is requested during the 

pendency of the resolution of the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal. In 

the event that this Court denies the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the 

State requests an additional fifteen (15) days from the date of the denial of 

the motion in which to file the State’s Brief. 

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant an additional 

extension of time during the pendency of the resolution of the State’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

hudson_heather@dao.hctx.net

curry_alan@dao.hctx.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been submitted 

for service by e-filing to the following address:

Matthew J. DeLuca

712 Main St., Suite 2450

Houston, Texas 77002

Tel: (713) 429-4400

Fax: (713) 228-2366

mattdeluca@gmail.com

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

Date: November 16, 2015
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Coates International, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form
10-KSB"), I, George J. Coates, Chief Executive Officer and the Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, that the Company's Form 10-KSB
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 the Form 10-KSB,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 2, 2005                 COATES INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

                                        By: /s/ George J. Coates
                                            ---------------------
                                            President, Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Principal Accounting Officer


                                       4
**EXHIBIT
      32**











**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
      to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Mistral Ventures, Inc. (Registrant)
      on
      Form 10Q-SB filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission filed concurrently
      herewith (the Report), I, John Xinos, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 Registrant.








**Mistral
      Ventures, Inc., a Nevada corporation**





August
      6,
      2006     /s/
      John
      Xinos


By:
      John
      Xinos, President, CEO, CFO, Principal


Accounting
      Officer and Director
## Proposed Rule: Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality

Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Meeting Documentation : American Petroleum Institute

Date Staff Contact Information

(Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)
3/20/14 Lisa Grogan

- McCulloch

Grogan

- grogan

mc culloch.lisa@epa.gov
617

- 918

- 1481 American Petroleum Institute:

Karen Ritter ( Ritterk@api.org ) Reid Smith ( smithgr@bp.com )

Miriam Levon ( miriam@levongroup.net ) Evelyn Nackman ( NackmanE@api.org ) Discussed proposed rule “ Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas Rep orting Program

. ” API discussed comments submitted to the EPA on proposed rule.
10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of iShares Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2008         
|                             
|/s/ Lee T. Kranefuss         
|Lee T. Kranefuss *           
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATIONS  I, James Shao, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Clean Energy Inc.; 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 officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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)         designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements, for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c)         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 (d)         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   5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could 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: November 14, 2006  /s/James ShaoJames Shao, Chief Financial Officer