alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
About Scott | Español

Search

Terms and Conditions 

CCR Home

Colorado Register

Colorado Revised Statutes

Search

eDocket

Rulemaking Login

Rule History

Contact Us

Code of Colorado Regulations eDocket 

Details of Tracking Number 2011-00670 

Tracking Number 2011-00670

Type of Filing Permanent Rule

Department 1000 Department of Public Health and Environment

Agency 1001 Air Quality Control Commission

CCR Number 5 CCR 1001-14

CCR Title AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, DESIGNATIONS AND 

EMISSION BUDGETS

Adopting Agency

Hearing Date 12/15/2011

Hearing Time 09:00 AM

Hearing Location

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Room, 

Denver, CO 80246

Proposed Rule ProposedRuleAttach2011-00670.DOC

Additional Information AddInfoAttach2011-00670.DOC

Description of Subjects/Issues 

to consider a proposed revised PM10 Maintenance Plan 

for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. 

Additionally, a change to the “Air Quality Standards – Air 

Quality Standards, Designations and Emission Budgets” 

regulation is proposed to update the PM10 emission 

budget for the Steamboat Springs area.

Comments SOS & PUBLISHER: Rule correction include redline 

changes only.

Public Name Christopher Dann

Public Title Public Information Officer

Public Telephone 303-692-3281

Public Email christopher.dann@state.co.us

Submitted in response to issues raised by COLS/OLLS? N 

Purpose/Objective of Rule

To adopt a revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the 

Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. 

Approval of the associated documents by both the City of 

Steamboat Springs and Routt County. Additionally, a

change to the Air Quality Standards, Designations and 

Emission Budgets regulation is proposed to update the 

PM10 emission budget for the Steamboat Springs area.

Statutory Authority Section 25-7-105(1)(a)(I), 24-4-103 and 25-7-110, 110.5 

and 110.8 C.R.S., as applicable and amended

Adopted Rules

AdoptedRules02011-00670.DOC

Redline Redline2011-00670.DOC

Adopted Date 12/15/2011

Attorney General Opinion 12/22/2011

Effective Date 01/30/2012

Inserted into CCR Date 01/20/2012

 

 

 

Page 1 of 1

http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/eDocketDetails.do?trackingNum=2011-00670 12/17/2013
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (the "Corporation") on Form 10-K/A for period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard MacPherson, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

|   | (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 Corporation. |

 

 

| Date: November 6, 2015 | By:    | */s/ Richard MacPherson*              |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Richard MacPherson                    |   |
|                        |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                        |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1702 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the mortgage interest 

deduction with respect to boats only if the boat is used as the principal 

residence of the taxpayer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2011 

Mr. QUIGLEY (for himself, Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

mortgage interest deduction with respect to boats only 

if the boat is used as the principal residence of the 

taxpayer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Taxpayer Sub5 sidies for Yachts Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1702 IH

1 SEC. 2. MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION ALLOWED WITH 

2 RESPECT TO BOATS ONLY IF BOAT IS USED 

3 AS THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OF THE TAX4 PAYER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subclause (ii) of section 

6 163(h)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘(other than a boat)’’ after ‘‘1 other 

8 residence of the taxpayer’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to indebtedness incurred 

12 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (2) SPECIAL RULE FOR REFINANCINGS.—For 

14 purposes of this subsection, indebtedness resulting 

15 from the refinancing of indebtedness shall be treated 

16 as incurred on the date the refinanced indebtedness 

17 was incurred (taking into account the application of 

18 this paragraph in the case of multiple refinancings) 

19 but only to the extent the indebtedness resulting 

20 from such refinancing does not exceed the refi21 nanced indebtedness. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40925 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANNY LIN MACCUNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-158-1

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

June 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Danny Lin Maccune has filed a

motion and brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Maccune has not filed a pro se brief in response to

counsel’s motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 quarterly report of I-trax, Inc. (the **“Company”** )
      on Form
      10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the **“Report”** ),
      I,
      David R. Bock, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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; and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      David R. Bock


David
      R.
      Bock


Executive Vice
      President and


Chief
      Financial Officer








August
      15, 2005
#### Ellis J. HILLIARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28433.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1956.

H. P. Robichau, Jr., Kenneth J. Hynes, Beaumont, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is felony theft, with a prior conviction for an offense of like character alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, 10 years.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear tp be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0092

IN THE MATTER OF:

F.S.,

Respondent and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 9, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 3 2020

09/03/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0092
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 WebEx Communications, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
      T. Everett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of
      Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to the
      best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.








Date:
      August 9, 2005










/s/ MICHAEL
      T. EVERETT


Michael
      T. Everett


Chief
      Financial Officer























































_____________________________






(*)
      In
      accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release Nos.
      33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Management’s Reports on Internal Control Over
      Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic
      Reports, the certification furnished in this Exhibit 32.2 is deemed to accompany
      this Form 10-Q and will not be deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18 of the
      Exchange Act. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, whether
      made before or after the date hereof irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in any such filing, except to the extent that the registrant
      specifically incorporates it by reference.
































Form
            10-Q
            for quarter ended June 30, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13109-13110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03416]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:

[[Page 13110]]

    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Materials 
Research--Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) 
Site Visit Columbia University (DMR) (#1203).
    Date and Time: April 15, 2024; 7:30 a.m.-6:45 p.m., April 16, 2024; 
8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.
    Place: Columbia University, 1140 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 
10027.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Serdar Ogut, Program Director, National Science 
Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 703-
292-4429.
    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit to conduct a review during year 
4 of the award period as stipulated in the cooperative agreement.
    Agenda: To conduct an in depth evaluation of performance, to assess 
progress towards goals, and to provide recommendations.

Monday, April 15, 2024

7:30 a.m.-12:05 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)
12:05 p.m.-1:00 p.m.--Lunch (Open)
1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)
2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.--Facilities Overview and Lab Tour (Closed)
3:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m.--Poster Session (Open)
5:00 p.m.-6:45 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)

Tuesday, April 16, 2024

8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)

    Reason for Closing: The program being reviewed during the site 
visit will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
program. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 14, 2024.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-03416 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
#### H.(Hugo) MORRIS v.STATE.

No. 28751.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1957.

J. Earl Barnhouse, Alice, for appellant.

Leon' B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Swindling is the offense; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Accompanying this record is the affidavit of appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 22, 2005

Before

Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge

 Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

 Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 04-2481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SPENCER DURHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 03 CR 38-1

Elaine E. Bucklo,

Judge.

O R D E R

After we ordered a limited remand, see United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005); United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir. 2005), the district

judge informed us that she would have imposed the same sentence on Spencer

Durham had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that

sentence fell within the correctly calculated guidelines range, it was presumptively

reasonable. See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Since Durham filed no response to rebut that presumption and our independent

review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Public Media Works, Inc. (the
Company), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: January 18, 2008                                                               
|                                                                                      
|/s/ Corbin Bernsen                                                                    
|Corbin Bernsen                                                                        
|Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)                                 
|                                                                                      
|/s/ Mark Smith                                                                        
|Mark Smith                                                                            
|Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer
and principal accounting officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### PETER STROUCH *v.*CDI CORPORATION-NORTHEAST

(14256)

O’Connell, Landau and Hennessy, Js.

Argued January 19

decision released February 13, 1996

*Michael E. Wolf,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Albert Zakarian,*with whom, on the brief, was *Barbara A. Petitjean,*for the appellee (defendant).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:



1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 29, 2013 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 Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 29, 2013 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Clarke H. Bailey                                  
|------------------------------------------------------
|Clarke H. Bailey                                      
|Executive Chairman and Interim Chief
Financial Officer









Date: December 3, 2013



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Vidal HIDALGO v. STATE.

No. 27419.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1955.

Albert Armendariz, Mauro Rosas, El Paso, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, 'for the State.

*114DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for drunken driving with punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and three days in jail.

As we understand this record, the holding and conclusion expressed in Salazar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 275 S.W.2d 112, are applicable and controlling here.

For the reasons there assigned, the judgment is affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 24

- 00203

- CR Robert G. FLORES , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 144th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020CR4663 Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Delivered and Filed: June 5, 2024
DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On November 9, 2021, appellant pled nolo contendere to possession of a firearm by a felo n and was placed on community supervision for three years. On February 1, 2024, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to three years in prison. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appea l was due by March 4, 2024. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1); R. 4.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file appellant’s notice of appeal was due by March 19, 2023. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. However, a ppellant did not file his04

- 24

- 00203

- CR

- 2

- notice of appeal until March 21, 2024. Furthermore, a ppellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo
v. State , 918 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may b e consider ed timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. Id

. On April 3, 2024, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by May 3, 2024 why this appeal should not be dismisse d for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response to our order. Because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal and did not timely file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, we have no choice but to dismiss thi s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id .; Perkins v. State , No. 04

- 22

- 00398

- CR, 2022 WL 3372418, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 17, 2022, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal when appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal and failed to file a motion for extension of time to file a no tice of appeal).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH