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

REGION 6

1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200

DALLAS. TX 75202-2733

MAR 23 2006

The Honorable Kath leen Hartnett Whi le

Chairman

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087

Austin. TX 787 11-3087

Dear Chairman Whil e:

On January 23. 2006, your office submitted to us a proposed revision to the Texas State

Implement ation Plan (SIP). This pro posal , received in our office on January 26, 2006, contained

a revision to the 30 TAC, Chapter 101. "General Air Quality Rules" for Emissions Events and

Scheduled Main tenance, Startup. and Shutdow n Activi ties.

ave reviewed the submission for this specific chapter of the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulations in accordance with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency's policy for determining completeness of SIP submittals and have determined

that the submittal is administratively complete. We will be reviewin g this SIP revision for

approval and will publish the appropriate action in (he Federal Register. The TCEQ will be

informed of our progress during this process.

If I may be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at (214 ) 665-2 100, or

your staff may contact Mr. Thom as Diggs of my staff at (214 ) 665-3102. Thank you for your

support in protecting human health and the environment.

Sincerely yours,

Richard E. Greene

Regional Admin istrator
#### George H. TERREBONNE v. U-HAUL COMPANY OF SOUTHERN LOUISIANA, Joseph V. Lovoi, Allstate Insurance Company and Republic Western Insurance Company.

No. 89-01343.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Terrebonne, George R.; U-Haul Company/South. LA; Lovoi, Joseph Y.; Allstate Insurance Co.; Republic Western Insurance Co.; — Jointly; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-CA-0817; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 346-714.

Prior report: La.App., 542 So.2d 859.

Denied.
EXHIBIT
32






CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Phoenix India Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ramesh
Akella, President, Chief Strategy Officer and Director (Principal Executive
Officer and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, 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:




(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 for the period
certified.





Pursuant
to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.




Signed
      on this 19th day of September, 2008/s/
            Ramesh
      AkellaRamesh
      Akella
              President,
      Chief Strategy Officer and Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
**UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

**______________________________**

** **

**FORM 10-Q/A**

** **

**[X]  Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2011**

** **

**Commission File Number:    000-51428**

** **

**ROTOBLOCK CORPORATION**

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

          Nevada                                                                    20-08987999

(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)        (I.R.S. Employer Employer Identification No.)

  

300 B Street, Santa Rosa, CA.                               95401

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)                (Zip Code)

  

                                                       (707) 578-5220                                                       

(Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrantwas required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes X      No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website,if any, every Interactive Date File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the 12 preceding months(or such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such file). Yes  No  X

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-acceleratedfiler. See definition of "accelerated filer" and "large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.(Check one):  Large accelerated filer ___ Accelerated filer ___ Non-accelerated filer ____   Smaller Reporting Company  X

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the ExchangeAct).     Yes    No  X

 

**At July 31, 2011, there were a total of 58,629,787 shares of our common stock issued and outstanding.  Ofthese shares, a total of 57,142,703 are restricted from trading, as defined under Rule 144 of the Securities Act of 1933,as amended.**

 

 

 

**EXPLANATORY NOTE**
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.1)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Lance Rosenzweig, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of PeopleSupport, 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 officer(s) 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 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 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(s) 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 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
controls. Date: February 25, 2005 /s/ Lance Rosenzweig Chairman of the Board of Directors
President and Chief Executive Officer 42
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.95 MB)
 
 U.S. Air Force Central Command Expeditionary Communication Squadron 386th ECS AFCENT 386th AEW U.S. Central Command
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ KATHLYN M. STEIN, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

DUANE B. GILL, DIRECTOR, VA CENTRAL WESTERN MA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2023

- 1265

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 3:18

- cv

- 30201

- MGM
, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni.

______________________ JUDGMENT

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been considered, it is

O RDERED AND A DJUDGED :

AFFIRMED

FOR THE COURT

June 9, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 23-1265 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2023
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 of Atlas America Public #14-2005 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      13, 2008
Attachment B

Attachment B

- 1: Combined SIP Completeness Checklist

Attachment B

- 2 : Materials Pertaining to

2009 Regulatory Action

, Second Tier

( Includes documents previously submitted 1/28/2011)

Attachment B

- 3 : Materials Pertaining to

2010 R egulatory Action

Attachment B

- 4 : Materials Pertaining to

2012 Regulatory ActionAttachment B

- 1: Combined SIP Completeness Checklist
#### Beverly WATSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Carl H. Lida, Miami, and Lane S. Abraham, for appellant.

*933Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Yvette Rhodes Prescott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Where the defendant failed to request an instruction on simple possession of cocaine as a lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine, and asked instead only for the “standard jury instructions” notwithstanding the trial court’s repeated inquiry as to whether she wanted additional instructions, there was no reversible error.1
      *See State v. Daophin,*533 So.2d 761 (FIa.1988) (simple possession is not a necessarily lesser included offense of trafficking). The evidence showed that the amount of cocaine possessed by the defendant exceeded the 400 grams amount necessary to a trafficking conviction.

Affirmed.

. Under a May 1987 revision to the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, possession is a permissive lesser included offense of trafficking in a controlled substance. *Florida Bar Re: Standard Jury Instr.-Criminal,*508 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1987).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5



                                FOURTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                             ESSEX SAVINGS BANK, FSB
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


          THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE ESSEX SAVINGS BANK, FSB SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN (the "Plan") is made as of the 1st day of January,
1999.

                                 WITNESSETH:


          WHEREAS, Essex Savings Bank, FSB (the "Bank") maintains the Essex
Savings Bank, FSB Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan") for the
benefit of certain of its executive employees and certain executive employees of
its subsidiaries; and

          WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to amend the Plan in certain
respects; and

          WHEREAS, the Bank has reserved the right to amend the Plan from time
to time.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective January 1, 1999
as follows:

          1.  Article V of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following
sentence at the end thereof:

                    Any provision herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the
          Retirement Accounts of Gene D. Ross and Earl McPherson shall be fully
          (100%) vested at all times.

           2.  Except as provided above, the Plan shall continue in accordance
with its terms as in effect immediately prior to the date of this Amendment.

          IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Fourth Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized officer this 27th day of October, 1999.


                                 ESSEX SAVINGS BANK, FSB



                                 By: /s/ Gene D. Ross
                                     ------------------
                                         Its: President
                                         --------------

                                       1
#### Richard Franklin GRAVITT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. C-82-660.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 7, 1983.

ORDER ASSUMING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, GRANTING WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner entered pleas of guilty in Tulsa County District Court to three violations of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Act, 63 O.S.1981, § 2-101, et seq. The pleas were part of an agreement whereby the State would recommend four-year suspended sentences on the charges. However, due to an unfavorable pre-sen-tence investigation report, the judge declined to suspend the sentences, and further declined to permit appellant to withdraw the pleas of guilty. Appellant was sentenced to three four-year terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently, and seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari.

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is directed to the sound discretion of *832the trial court. *Elmore v. State,*624 P.2d 78 (Okl.Cr.1981); *Darnell v. State,*623 P.2d 617 (Okl.Cr.1981). However, in *King v. State,*553 P.2d 529 (Okl.Cr.1976), this Court stated in relevant part:

> We now reassess our views on the issue delineated by the defendant to-wit: Should the defendant be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty when the trial court does not accept the District Attorney’s dispositional recommendation?

> 

> Such a procedure allows for at least the “taint of false inducement" even when the trial court properly advises the accused that the trial court is not bound by the District Attorney’s dispositional recommendation. Therefore, in all future cases the following procedure is applicable;

> 

> 2. If the court determines from said appearing parties that the tendered plea of guilty is the result of a plea agreement and determines from the defendant that there is a factual basis for the plea óf guilty, the trial court shall then require the full disclosure of the plea agreement and the trial court shall then proceed as follows:

> 

> b. Inform the defendant the trial court concurs in the plea agreement upon the condition that the presentence report, unless affirmatively waived by the defendant, and other relevant evidence are consistent with the representations made to the court at the plea hearing. However, if after receipt of the presentence report and other relevant evidence the trial court can no longer concur in the plea agreement the trial court *must*then afford the defendant the opportunity to reaffirm or withdraw his plea; or, (Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.) 553 P.2d at 533, 534, 535-536.

We are of the view that *King*controls this issue. The trial court erred in refusing to permit withdrawal of the plea of guilty.

We assume original jurisdiction and grant the petition for writ of certiorari. The judgment and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed therein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this the 7th day of June, 1983.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.

TOM BRETT, J.
EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

SUBSIDIARY                                                       JURISDICTION
----------                                                       ------------
Main Entertainment, Inc.                                          Arizona
Bamboo Club, Inc.                                                 Arizona
Cornerstone Productions, Inc.                                     Delaware
Main St. / Cornerstone Texas, Inc.                                Texas
Main St. Northwest, Inc.                                          Arizona
Main St. Hospitality, Inc.                                        Arizona
Fiddlesticks, Inc.                                                Arizona
Main St. Midwest, Inc.                                            Kansas
Main St. California, Inc.                                         Arizona
Main St. Louisiana Restaurants, Inc.                              Arizona
Main St. El Paso, Inc.                                            Arizona
Redfish America, LLC                                              Arizona
Redfish Cleveland, Inc.                                           Ohio
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10592

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANDY DALE WARREN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:91-CR-339-P

- - - - - - - - - -

January 20, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Randy Dale Warren appeals the district court’s decision to

revoke his supervised release and his sentence. Warren contends

that the district court denied him the right to confront and

cross-examine an adverse witness at his revocation hearing.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Warren’s supervised release. United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d

214, 219 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 264 (1995). The
No. 96-10592

- 2 -

record supports the district court’s implicit finding that good 

cause existed to admit the evidence without allowing Warren the

opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness. United

States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 510 (5th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 116 S. Ct. 1031 (1996). Any error in the district

court’s evidentiary ruling was harmless. Kotteakos v. United

States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946).

AFFIRMED.
#### Penny Dowd LIUZZA v. Otto John SCHAEFER.

No. 87-CC-2639.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Liuzza, Penny Dowd; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. CA-8600, CA-8537; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “H”, No. 85-18470.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant and remand for argument and opinion.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.