alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An equal opportunity employer Thomas M. Gray 211(b) Technical Manager

1220 L Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20005-4070

Tel 202-682-8480

Fax 202-682-8270 E-mail grayt@api.org

October 16, 2009

Karl Simon

Division Director Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code: 6406J Washington, DC 20460

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Hea lth Effects Testing Regulation: Final Submission for 211(b) (Docket No. A-90-07) Draft Final Reports: Chronic Carcinogenicity Studies on Baseline Gasoline Vapor Condensate (BGVC) and Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate (GMVC)

Dear Mr. Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

• Draft Final Report: 211(b) Chronic Carcinogenicity Study on Baseline Gasoline Vapor Condensate (BGVC) - FY01-027

• Draft Final Report: 211(b) Chronic Carcinogenicity Study on Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate (GMVC) - FY01-013

The revised draft reports have undergone review by tw o independent peer-reviewer s, outside QA/QC, EPA and the 211(b) Technical Workgroup. Therefore these repo rts are being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regiona l Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07).

In the February 12, 2007 report memorandum regarding these two reports, EPA recommended that the reports be approved contingent upon the Agency ’s technical comments being addressed in the final report submission. A checklist is enclosed for each report, capturing EPA and RG comments to the performing laboratory and indicating the changes made in response to the comments a nd their locations in the report. If you require further information or have any questions rega rding this submission, please contact me.

Regards,

Thomas M. Gray, M.S., DABT

Encl (4): Draft Final Report: 211(b) Chronic Carcinogenicity Stud y on Baseline Gasoline Vapor Condensate (BGVC) - FY01-027

Draft Final Report: 211(b) Chronic Carcinogenicity Study on Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate (GMVC) - FY01-013Reviewer Checklist for Draft Final Baselin e Gasoline Vapor Condensate (BGVC) Chronic Carcinogenicity Study in Ra ts. October 1, 2009 Benson

Reviewer Checklist for Draft Final Gasoline MTBE Vapor Condensate (GMVC) Chronic Carcinogenicity Study in Rats. October 1, 2009 Benson

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA
Exhibit 31.2


I, Judy Ye, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Tengtu International Corp.;

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 14 and 15d 14) for the registrant and we 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

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
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         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 data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date:    October 15, 2003

/s/ Judy Ye
-----------
Judy Ye
Chief Financial Officer
#### CENTRAL PROGRESSIVE BANK v. Sherry Wyatt, Wife of/and Sam P. BRADLEY.

No. 87-C-1124.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Cumbo, Harold Barnett — Third Party; Cumbo, Mary Rose Mac Neil — Third *75Party; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA85 0834; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 79429.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 711.

Denied.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 165

In memory of Senior Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27, 1999

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. DEWINE, Mr.

FEINGOLD, AND Mr. FITZGERALD) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

In memory of Senior Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Whereas Frank M. Johnson, Jr. was appointed a United

States District Judge in Alabama by President Eisenhower in 1955;

Whereas Judge Johnson was elevated to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by President

Carter in 1979;

Whereas in a time when men of lesser fortitude would have

avoided direct confrontation on the highly unpopular

issues of school desegregation and voting rights for African-Americans, Judge Johnson stood firm in upholding

the Constitution and the law;
2

SRES 165 ATS

Whereas Judge Johnson struck down the Montgomery, Alabama law that had mandated that Rosa Parks sit in the

back of a city bus, because he believed that ‘‘separate,

but equal’’ was inherently unequal;

Whereas Judge Johnson upheld the constitutionality of Federal laws granting African-Americans the right to vote in

Alabama elections, because he believed in the concept of

‘‘one man, one vote’’;

Whereas despite tremendous pressure from Governor George

Wallace, Judge Johnson allowed the voting rights march

from Selma to Montgomery to proceed, thus stirring the

national conscience to enact the Voting Rights Act of

1965;

Whereas today, around a courthouse that bears Frank Johnson’s name in Montgomery, Alabama there are integrated

schools, buses, and lunch counters, and representative democracy flourishes in Alabama with African-American

state, country, and municipal officials who won their offices in fair elections with the votes of African-American

and white citizens;

Whereas in part because of Judge Johnson’s upholding of the

law, attitudes that were once intolerant and extreme have

dissipated;

Whereas the members of the Senate extend our deepest sympathies to Judge Johnson’s family and the host of friends

that he had across the country;

Whereas Judge Johnson passed away at his home in Montgomery, Alabama on July 23, 1999; and

Whereas the American people will always remember Judge

Frank M. Johnson, Jr. for exemplifying unwavering

moral courage in the advancement of the wholly Amer-
3

SRES 165 ATS

ican ideal that ‘‘all men are created equal’’ and deserve

‘‘equal protection of the laws’’ and for upholding the law:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That—

2 (1) the Senate hereby honors the memory of

3 Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. for his exemplary

4 service to his country and for his outstanding exam5 ple of moral courage; and

6 (2) when the Senate adjourns on this date it

7 shall do so out of respect to the memory of Judge

8 Frank M. Johnson, Jr.

Æ
#### Bernice BENNETT v. CORROON & BLACK CORPORATION, Corroon & Black of Louisiana.

No. 88-C-0111.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Bennett, Bernice; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7730; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 86-1137.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 1245.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and COLE, J., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT 32.3



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  accompanying  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB/A  (the "Report") of Diamond  Entertainment  Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Fred U. Odaka,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my 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 results

of operations of the Company.







/s/ Fred U. Odaka



Fred U. Odaka



Title:  Chief Financial Officer Chief Accounting Officer)



Date:  October 7, 2005
#### In the Matter of Abraham A. Hiltzik et al., Petitioners, against Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

August 25, 1958.

*Irwin M. Taylor*for petitioners.

*Emory Gardiner*for respondent.

George Eilperin, J.

Petitioners move pursuant to article 78 (Civ. Prae. Act) to annul orders of the State Rent Administrator modifying over-all rent increases previously granted to compensate the landlords for the installation of heat and hot water in cold-water tenements. The petitioners contend that there is no legal sanction for the Rent Administrator’s reopening and modification of a prior final order and that such modification is an improper retroactive application of a new policy and further that the respondent is estopped from modifying its decision in view of its prior conduct.

The court is of the opinion that there is no basis for such contention and accordingly the motion is denied. The statute and regulations grant the Rent Administrator power to revoke, in whole or in part, any previous grant of rent increases in cases where the basis of the original grant has been materially changed. (See State Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 33.) In this case the petitioner is desirous of receiving duplicate or multiple relief, both from the State as well as from the City of New York.

A case analogous to the present one is the *Matter of Sherman-Taylor Corp.*v. *Temporary State Rousing Comm.*(15 Misc 2d 646, 647) in which the court held as follows: “In view of the fact that petitioner was previously granted rent increases based upon the then existing taxes as part of operating expenses, it appears clear that respondent is correct in ordering a prorata refund based upon the decrease in the taxes and recoupment by the landlord after the certiorari proceedings.”

*630The question of estoppel is not applicable since it has been held that estoppel does not lie against the exercise of a sovereign power (see *Matter of Rochester Tr. Corp.*v. *Public Service Comm.,*271 App. Div. 406, 411; also *Building Realty & Securities Corp. v. McGoldrich,*137 N. Y. S. 2d 708).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Cogent, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Kim, Chief 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 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 results of operations of the Company.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: May 8, 2009



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ PAUL KIM                                
|Paul Kim                                    
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Helen Marie REESE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. BQ-356, BS-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 10, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellant Reese appeals a judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found her guilty of attempted second-degree murder. We affirm both the judgment and sentence, pursuant to an Anders1 brief submitted by appellant’s counsel. On review of supplemental briefs filed by both appellant and appellee2, however, we reverse the trial *365court’s order imposing costs pursuant to section 960.20 and section 943.25(4), and directing appellant to “either pay $200 to the Criminal Justice Fund or complete sixty (60) hours of community service work,” pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes. Although costs may be imposed on an indigent defendant under sections 960.-20 and 943.25(4), *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), as well as under the amended section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1987), the trial court must first afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to object. *Jenkins v. State, supra; Mays v. State,*519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988). Since due process requirements were not observed in this case, the portion of the trial court’s order imposing costs is reversed and remanded for rehearing. On remand, the trial court is to use the amended section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1987). *Riddell v. State,*509 So.2d 956, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); *Brown v. State,*508 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); *Jones v. State,*507 So.2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

JOANOS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

. *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

. This court requested supplemental briefs on the issue of costs, pursuant to *State v. Causey,*
        *365503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987), after an examination of the record revealed an apparently meritorious issue not raised in the *Anders*brief.
çD ST.

PRO’ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 

## MAR 07 2014
Richard W. Corey Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Bo 2815 Sacramentofornia 95812 Dear

. rey: On January 21, 2014, CARE submitted revisions to the California State ImplementationPlan (SIP). Wehavereviewedmaterials submittedwiththe following nile andfoundthatthey fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFRPart 51, Appendix V. APCD/AQMD Rule # Rule Title Imperial County 207 New and Modified Stationary Source Review This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Inthe coming months we will reviewthe complete revisions for action pursuantto Clean Air Act section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Robert Marinaro at (415) 972-3019.

cc: Brad Poiriez, Air Pollution Control Officer, Imperial County APCD Michael Guzzetta, Manager. Rule Evaluation Section, CARB Sincerely,

P,i,it’d on Revt/ed Pupci
University of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 26, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00552

- CV

Cesar VELEZ

, Appellant

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 11974

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s brief was due November 17, 2014, pursuant to an order of this court. On

November 6, 2014 , appellant filed an unopposed motion to abate the appeal. In the motion,

appellant advise d th is court that this matter arises from a judgment relating to a student loan and

the parties are in the process of resolving the matter by refinancing the loan at issue. Based on

the potential resolution, appellant ask ed that we abate this matter for sixty d ays

— the time

estimated to complete the refinancing process.

Based on appellant’s representations, we granted t he unopposed motion to abate. We

ordered the appeal abated until further order of this court. We also ordered appellant to file in

this co urt

, on or before January 12, 2015 , a motion to dismiss or a written status report

advising this court of the status of the settlement. Appellant has filed neither a motion to

dismiss nor a written status report.

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file in this court on or before 

### February 5, 2015

, a motion to dismiss or a written status report advising this court of the status of the settlement. If

appellant does not comply with this court’s order, we will order the abatement lifted, reinstate

appeal, and set a deadline for the filing of appellant’s brief.We order the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy, 2012

Two hundred and thirty-six years ago, a new American Nation was founded on an old Greek principle—democratic rule by a free people. We trace this enduring idea to ancient Hellas, where Greeks brought forth the world’s first democracy and kindled a philosophical tradition that would stand the test of time. Over two millennia later, the Greek people rose up to reclaim their heritage as citizens of a sovereign nation. Today, on the 191st anniversary of Greece’s independence, we commemorate that struggle to restore democracy in its birthplace, renew the bonds that bring our countries together, and celebrate the Hellenic ideals that continue to shape the American experience.

As America’s Founders built a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, they drew inspiration from the democratic pioneers who shaped a small group of ancient Greek city states. In the years since, Greece and America have strengthened that connection through shared history and deep partnerships between our people. During the American Civil War, Greek Americans served and fought to preserve our Union. Through two World Wars and a long Cold War, America and Greece stood as allies in the pursuit of peace. And for generations, Greek Americans have profoundly enriched our national life. They stand as leaders in every field and every part of our society, and their cultural legacy still echoes in classrooms, courtrooms, and communities across our Nation.

On Greek Independence Day, we commemorate the proud traditions that tie our nations together and honor all those who trace their lineage to the Hellenic Republic. Nearly 200 years after the Greek people won their war to return democracy to their homeland and become a sovereign state, we reaffirm the warm friendship and solidarity that will guide our work together in the years ahead.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 25, 2012, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. I call upon all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

[FR Doc. 2012-7640

Billing code 3295-F2-P
#### STATE ex rel. Tookie DAVALIE v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KP-2323.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Davalie, Tookie; applying for reconsideration of writ denial of December 19, 1986, 498 So.2d 755, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 235-759.

Denied.
#### Spencer B. Parker, Respondent, *v.*Erie Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Parker*v. *Erie R. R. Co.,*161 App. Div. 909, affirmed.

(Argued January 27, 1916;

decided February 22, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 16, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by *649plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The complaint alleged that plaintiff while crossing defendant’s right of way caught his foot in a defect in said crossing and while endeavoring to extricate it was run down by a train receiving the injuries complained of.

*John W. Ryan*for appellant.

S. *Wallace Dempsey, Alan V. Parker*and *Allen T. Stewart*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ. Dissenting: Cuddeback, J. Not voting: Hiscock, J. Not sitting: Pound, J.