alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: October 18, 2013 US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA- 2013-0040
ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE

, This matter is currently set for hearing on October 28 and 29, 2013, inclusive, inthe U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 14th Floor, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1496. The Agencyhas requested a continuance citing the government shutdown. Respondenthas filed an objection. Under normal circumstances we would deny the request for continuance. The government furlough/shutdown was an extraordinaryevent. WHEREFORE, the Agency'srequest and Respondent's objectionto continue this matterhavingbeen read and considereditbe and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. This matter is continued from the dates cited above. 2. The parties should advise the court as soon as possible oftheir availability during the following periods: a. December 2 through December 6, 2013, b. December 9 throughDecember 13,2013, c. January 2014, excluding January 20, and d. February 2014, excluding February 3through 7, inclusive.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service ListJ '

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal·Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY 

### Michael 

### L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel Michael 

### L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 TEL: 415-421-2500 FAX: 415-421-2560 James Archier, Complainant's Counsel Agency Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region Federal AviationAdministration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5074 FAX: 817-222-5092 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing-Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 2
Exhibit 4.44


 


CEEG Payment Commitment Letter


 


China Sunergy (Hong Kong) Co., Limited:


 


With respect to that China Sunergy (Nanjing)
Co., Ltd. (“Company”) and its subsidiary CEEG (Nanjing) Semiconductor Co., Ltd. owe a debt to you due to advance payment
and share transfer payment, as promised in written, we would make installment repayment of advance payment amounted RMB 429 million
in one year calculated from February 2015 and share transfer payment amounted RMB 39.63 million in half of a year calculated from
February 2015. The commitment period of advance payment and share transfer payment will expire this month and next month, respectively.
As our power station cannot be commenced on schedule and other certain reasons, we propose that the repayment date shall be extended
and we commit that the share transfer payment shall be repaid by installments in one and half years from now and the advance payment
amounted RMB 429 million shall be repaid by installments in two years from now.


 


/s/ China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.


 


/s/ CEEG (Nanjing) Semiconductor Co., Ltd.


 


May 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James L. Styles, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), rendered November 28, 1990, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

As a condition of his probation, defendant was required to complete a specific counseling program at a treatment center. When defendant was administratively discharged prior to the completion of said program, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Although the discharge report from the treatment center is hearsay and does not meet the business record exception, hearsay may be admitted in a probation violation hearing *(People v Krzykowski,*121 AD2d 831). While hearsay alone is insufficient to prove that a defendant has violated a condition of probation *(People v Davis,*155 AD2d 610, *lv denied*75 NY2d 812; *People v Krzykowski, supra),*in this case there is "a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” *(People v Machia,*96 AD2d 1113, 1114) to establish a finding of a probation violation. In addition to the testimony of the probation officers, defendant himself testified that he was not cooperative and that his own actions led to his discharge. Because defendant did not successfully complete the treatment program as he was required to do, County Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant’s probation *(see, People v Bacchi,*112 AD2d 940; *People v Forman,*105 AD2d 984, 984-985).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
west virginia department of environmental protection



# Appendix G Belmont County, Ohio Emissions Inventory Summary

Promoting a healthy environment.

### [This page intentionally left blank.]Belmont PM2.5
Sector 2005 Base 2008 Attainmen t 2015 Interim 2022 Maintenance Safety Margin EGU Point 93.85 69.58 20.87 0.00 69.58 Non-EGU 3.39 3.39 3.94 4.40

‐ 1.01 Non-road 27.39 24.15 17.38 10.53 13.62 Area 307.93 305.38 297.20 289.22 16.16 MAR 6.21 5.65 3.46 1.36 4.30 On-road 105.74 88.66 45.08 26.32 62.34 TOTAL 544.50 496.80 387.93 331.82 164.98Belmont SO2
Sector 2005 Base 2008 Attainment 2015 Interim 2022 Maintenance Safety Margin EGU Point 37,329.95 15,126.00 8,783.33 6,065.04 9,060.96 Non-EGU 0.13 0.07 0.10 0.11

‐ 0.04 Non-road 21.98 8.13 1.37 0.31 7.82 Area 93.50 92.24 87.16 82.29 9.95 MAR 22.84 16.33 6.86 3.20 13.13 On-road 30.84 9.38 6.72 6.21 3.17 TOTAL 37,499.24 15,252.14 8,885.54 6,157.15 9,094.99Belmont NOx
Sector 2005 Base 2008 Attainmen t 2015 Interim 2022 Maintenance Safety Margin EGU Point 4,149.93 4,167.94 4,477.58 4,738.00

‐ 570.06 Non-EGU 22.76 20.67 20.19 18.90 1.78 Non-road 222.46 196.86 145.51 93.37 103.49 Area 284.66 286.90 286.77 287.15

‐ 0.25 MAR 261.85 247.24 160.63 78.94 168.30 On-road 3,179.52 2,593.58 1,279.25 587.61 2,005.97 TOTAL 8,121.18 7,513.19 6,369.92 5,803.97 1,709.22

### [This page intentionally left blank.]1 

### Crowder, Laura M

From: Prado, Carolina <Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:39 PM To: Durham, William F; Crowder, Laura M Subject: Wheeling numbers Attachments: Wheeling.xls; PMSIP_summary_BOMTSrv.xlsx; Wheeling_PM25MOVES_doc.docx

Attached are: 1) Spreadsheet with emissions for all sources 2) Spreadsheet with only MOVES numbers (created by ODOT and Belomar) 3) Technical document (by Belomar)

FYI. We are claiming mobile insignificance for PM2.5 and SO2.

I will send Parkersburg and Steubenville in different emails!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Carolina M. Prado State Implementation Plan Development Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 614

‐ 644

‐ 2310 Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us



### --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------- This message was secured by Zix Corp (R)

.
# C_2008107EN.01001001.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Athanasios Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

(Case C-22/08)

(2008/C 107/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Athanasios Vatsouras

Applicant:

Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compatible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compatible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC?

1

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of social assistance if the maximum period of residence permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under other provisions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of social assistance if the maximum period of residence permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under other provisions?

| 3. | If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 12 EC preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union even from receipt of the social assistance benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 12 EC preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union even from receipt of the social assistance benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

1

---
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 Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher J. Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 Company.



Dated:	 August
13, 2012



/s/ Christopher J. Reed

Christopher J. Reed

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
IB 

Union Calendar No. 431 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4289 

[Report No. 115–571] 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to coal and mine safety. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia (for himself and Mr. BARR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

FEBRUARY 20, 2018 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on November 7, 2017] 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4289 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to coal and mine safety. 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4289 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF COAL AND MINE SAFETY DISCLO4 SURE REQUIREMENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank 

6 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (15 

7 U.S.C. 78m-2) is hereby repealed. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in 

9 section 1(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

10 Consumer Protection Act is amended by striking the item 

11 relating to section 1503. 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 431 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4289 

[Report No. 115–571] 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

ty. sure requirements related to coal and mine safeConsumer Protection Act to repeal certain discloFEBRUARY 20, 2018 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
#### James Cmaylo, Respondent, v Abraham Geichman et al., Appellants.

— In an action to recover moneys due under a written agreement between the parties, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated January 12, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted the plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3213, for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ claim that the agreement sued upon is not an instrument for the payment of money only pursuant to CPLR 3213 is not preserved for appellate review since it was not raised in the Supreme Court *(see, Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. & Maintenance Corp.,*115 AD2d 576, 577). In any event, the agreement, which provided for the unconditional payment of specified sums over a stated time period, did qualify for summary judgment treatment pursuant to CPLR *1513213 *(see, Gittleson v Dempster,*148 AD2d 578, 579; *Seaman Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp.,*31 AD2d 136, 137, *affd*29 NY2d 617).

The defendants’ contentions with regard to their alleged defenses of lack of consideration, duress and fraudulent misrepresentations, which were not supported by specific factual details, were insufficient to justify the denial of the plaintiffs motion. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# C_2020287EN.01002001.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/20

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against FU

(Cases C-554/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) 2016/399 - Schengen borders code - Articles 22 and 23 - Abolition of internal border controls in the Schengen area - Checks within the territory of a Member State - Measures having an effect equivalent to border checks - Identity checks in the vicinity of an internal border of the Schengen area - Possibilities of checks irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned or of the existence of specific circumstances - National framework concerning the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks)

(2020/C 287/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kehl

Criminal proceedings against

FU

Intervening party: Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg

Operative part of the order

Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 22 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) must be interpreted as not precluding a national legislative provision which confers on the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check the identity of any person, within an area of 30 kilometres from that Member State’s land border with other Schengen States, with a view to preventing or terminating unlawful entry into or residence in the territory of that Member State or preventing certain criminal offences which undermine the security of the border, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned or the existence of specific circumstances, provided that that power is framed by sufficiently detailed specifications and limitations on the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks carried out, thereby guaranteeing that the practical exercise of that power cannot have an effect equivalent to border checks, which is, however, a matter for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 20 22

- 2163 LT Case No. 2020

- 00015

- CF

- 54

_____________________________ S COTT M ICHAEL L USCH , Appellant,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County

. Howard O. McGillin, Jr. , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett , Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach , for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel Caldwell , Assistant Attorney General , Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

June 25, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

.

M AKAR , W ALLIS , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur
.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 2, 2017

a0424 

# Order

Clerk May 2, 2017

154280

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154280

COA: 332878

Isabella CC: 2015

- 001059

- FH

WILLIAM NEIL LEE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                           5
                                     
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                 540,298
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             0
<PP&E>                              18,984,433
<DEPRECIATION>                       4,242,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      15,469,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        0
<BONDS>                              5,619,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        15,469,324
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     3,656,389
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        2,864,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     446,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        344,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           344,889
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            20.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                            20.87
        


</TABLE>
# C_2020423EN.01001202.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co. KG, Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’ v Landeshauptmann von Steiermark

(Case C-629/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 2(2)(a), point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) - Waste water - Sewage sludge - Scope - Concept of ‘waste’ - Cessation of waste status - Recovery or recycling operation)

(2020/C 423/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sappi Austria Produktions-GmbH & Co. KG, Wasserverband ‘Region Gratkorn-Gratwein’

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Steiermark

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a), point 1 of Article 3 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as meaning that sewage sludge generated during the joint treatment of industrial and residential or municipal waste water in a sewage treatment plant, which is incinerated in a waste incineration plant for the purposes of energy recovery by generating steam, must be regarded as not being waste if the conditions in Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98 are already met before its incineration. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 11.1





Statement re: Computation of per share earnings





Reconciliations of net income per share and net income per share, assuming dilution computations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002 and 2001 are as follows (amounts in thousands, except share amounts):





Three Months Ended September 30,


Nine Months Ended September 30,2002


2001


2002


2001Numerator:Net loss-numerator for basic and diluted loss per share

$
(2,208
)

$
(2,753
)

$
(11,923
)

$
(7,488
)Denominator:Denominator for basic loss per common share weighted average shares


34,232



32,890



33,711



30,385Effect of dilutive securities-stock option














Denominator for diluted loss per common share


34,232



32,890



33,711



30,385





Potentially dilutive shares are excluded from the computation in loss periods, as their
effect would be antidilutive.
l 

l 

----

Our Ref. 085-12/DRE/AM-VCD 

Subject: Declaration of Reciprocity 

Dear Mr. Gretch 

Mt Paul G<etch 

Director, Offioe of the Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 

US Depertment of Transportation 

400 7., Street, S.W.Room 6402 

Washington, DC 20590 

Lisboa, 

The National Institute of Civ11 Aviation herewith confinns that this civil aviation authority will 

grant, on the basis of reciproc:Jty, to any ca«ler designated by the United States of America 

the right to conduct third. fourth and fifth ·freedom non-scheduled (charter) passenge<S flights 

tollrom Ponugal m conformity wrth the Air Transport Agreement between the European 

Union and the Unaod States of Amorica, signed in Brussels on the 25" of April of 2007 and 

in Washington, on the 3o" of April of 2007. 

The present Declaration of Reciprocity is valid for a period of six (6) months as from 

February 01 , 2012. 

Your sincerely 

/I 

I ..., ... \ .. ( 

PaUlo Alexandre Soares 

Member of the Board 

IIIIIM 8 &lleo 4 ·»IIPCIIO ~ P.,... + 1140).& IIQIIIUGAt 

'k4 •l5o1ilt lo4Z ...C.l5CQ' ~--I .. fl5.1) 11 ..0 23. 

- I!IAt. lll " l-1 ~--ilt
21946

#### State v. Toler

Vacated and Remanded