alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ß."S sleù¿*

LEHIGH

¡{E IDELBERG CEM E NT Group

March 21,2007

Overnight

Mr. Peter Tsirigotis

Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: Lehigh Cement Company

Mason City, lowa Plant

Mercury Stack Testing

Dear Mr. Tsirigotis:

Lehigh Cement Company is in receipt of your March 15,2007 letter regarding

new source standards for the Portland Cement Manufacturing lndustry for mercury

based on the performance of a wet scrubber. The letter states that if the test protocol is

approved in a timely manner, that Lehigh anticipates submitting the test data results to

EPA by June 30, 2007. Lehigh is unaware of how this Ç4te was derived, but we will

strive to send the test data to EPA as soon as practical.T [-o that extent, please be

aware that the Mason City Plant will be shutting down fqrlits annual winter maintenance

outage beginning April 1 ,2007. This outage is an unusu-ally long one and will last at

least seven weeks and conclude around May 26,2007. The reason for the long outage

is Lehigh will be installing a new clinker cooler and its associated new baghouse as

approved under our current NSR/PSD permit. Once the kiln is back on line, any and all

start-up problems are resolved, and steady state operation is achieved for two weeks,

Lehigh will conduct the mercury stack testing. As you can see, it is not possible to meet

the June 30,2007 submittal date.

Thank you and we look fon¡vard to working with the Agency in this effort.

Sincerely, ñAa

Timothy L. Matz

Corporate Environmental Manager

TLM/jmt

c: G. McKervey - Mason City

R. Dunn - Mason City

Lehigh Cement Company

CORPORATE OFFICE

7660 lmperial Way

Allentown, PA 18195-1040

Phone (610) 366-4600

Fax (610) 366-4851

www.lehighcement.com
July 1, 2015

Mr. Aaron Hatzenbuhler

Motor City Drone Company LLC

1691 Braemar Road

Oakland Township, MI 48363

Dear Mr. Hatzenbuhler:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains 

why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of Motor City Drone Company LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1285) on April 28, 2015, but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-1000V 

UNPUBLISHED 

ASHLEY PARMER, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 22, 2021 

Withdrawal of petition; Order 

concluding proceedings 

 

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

 On February 26, 2021, Ashley Parmer filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2

Petitioner alleged that she suffered injuries after receiving a human papillomavirus 

vaccination on February 3, 2014, March 10, 2014 and August 7, 2014. ECF NO. 1. 

 Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine 

Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “that the petitioner may withdraw the petition 

under section 300aa—21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 

300aa—21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—12(g). On November 4, 2021, Petitioner timely filed a notice to 

withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b). 

In light of Petitioner’s election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa—21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner’s request to withdraw the 

petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office. 

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Chief Special Master
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC 

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX, INC., 

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-00758-ADA

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON AMENDED FINAL CONTENTIONS DISPUTES 

The parties dispute the propriety of Motion Offense’s amendments to its Final Infringement 

Contentions and Dropbox’s amendments to its Final Invalidity Contentions. The parties also 

dispute whether Dropbox may rely on allegedly highly confidential materials, including its nonpublic source code and internal technical documentation, as prior art in its invalidity contentions. 

ORDER

Having considered the parties’ submissions to the Court on the above issues, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that 

I. By July 13, 2022, Dropbox shall file any motion to strike portions of Motion Offense’s 

Amended Final Infringement Contentions it believes are prejudicial, and Motion Offense 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 151-2 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 2
2

shall file any motion to strike portions of Dropbox’s Amended Final Invalidity Contentions 

it believes are prejudicial. 

II. By July 20, 2022, Motion Offense shall file a response to any Dropbox Motion to Strike, 

and Dropbox shall file a response to any Motion Offense Motion to Strike;

III. The parties’ dispute regarding use of highly confidential materials in Dropbox’s invalidity 

contentions is more properly the subject of briefing at the summary judgment stage; 

IV. The Scheduling Order in the consolidated cases (Dkt. No. 139) is hereby revised as follows 

to allow the parties time to brief their respective motions to strike. 

Event Current Deadline New Deadline

Opening Expert Reports July 12, 2022 August 5, 2022

Rebuttal Expert Reports August 16, 2022 September 9, 2022

Close of Expert Discovery September 2, 2022 September 23, 2022

Motion Offense narrows to 15 claims September 9, 2022 September 30, 2022

Dropbox narrows to 20 combinations 

and 15 prior art references. Prior art 

relied upon by an expert only as 

evidence of the knowledge of a person 

of ordinary skill in the art does not 

count as a prior art reference. Multiple 

pieces of prior art evidence (for 

example, documents, source code, 

webpages, videos or any other forms 

of evidence) used as evidence relating 

to one prior art system counts as a 

single prior art reference. Motion 

Offense is not precluded from 

challenging the prior art status of any 

such evidence and/or seeking to 

exclude its use.

September 23, 2022 October 10, 2022

Dispositive motion deadline/Daubert 

deadline September 30, 2022 October 17, 2022

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 151-2 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jimmy Hudson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he had been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30, 210.20). We disagree. The court properly excluded from the statutory six-month time period (CPL 30.30 [1] [a]) delays consented to or requested by defendant to attempt to negotiate a favorable plea bargain and to testify before the Grand Jury *(see generally, People v Sharpe,*115 AD2d 996, *lv denied*67 NY2d 889; *People v Wolf,*115 AD2d 997, *lv denied*67 NY2d 892). Also properly excluded were the nine days "during which the defendant [was] without counsel through no fault of the court” (CPL 30.30 [4] [f]). We also agree with the court’s exclusion of 57 days because of defendant’s avoidance from apprehension *(see,*CPL 30.30 [4] [c]; *People v Brazeau,*162 AD2d 979; *People v Liss,*131 AD2d 595, 596, *lv denied*70 NY2d 714). When these periods are excluded, the People were ready for trial within the six-month period. We, however, do agree with the People that the hearing court erred in failing to exclude the period from April 27, 1988 to June 28, 1988. The hearing court charged this period to the People because of the failure by the police to exercise due diligence to locate defendant. During this period the police checked repeatedly for defendant at his place of employment, went to defendant’s sister’s house on two occasions, and interviewed defendant’s two sisters and one of their boyfriends in their attempt to locate defendant. Under all the circumstances, those efforts to locate defendant were reasonable and constituted "due diligence” (CPL 30.30 [4] [c]; *People v Wojciechowski,*143 AD2d 164, 165-166, *lv denied*73 NY2d 861; *People v Stone,*136 AD2d 662, 663).

*951We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—sexual abuse, first degree.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

DROPBOX INC

vs.

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC, MOTION

OFFENSE, LLC, DROPBOX INC

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00251-ADA

ORDER RESETTING FinalINAL Pretrial PRETRIAL Conference CONFERENCE

Reset

Zoom

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE by Public Zoom on May 10, 2023 at 04:00 PM .

25th day of April, 2023.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 325 Filed 04/25/23 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Annual Report of
NewLead Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonis Bertsos, 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



Date: May 15, 2012



|/s/ Antonis Bertsos     | 
|----------------------- | 
|Antonis Bertsos         | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 



|* | This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of NewLead Holdings Ltd. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Periodic Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order entered May 13, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00512
- CR ANGELA LYNN SERNA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judi cial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219
- 82217
- 2017



### O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal. We abated this appeal for a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief ha d not been filed. On May 9, 2019, the reporter’s record from the trial court’s hearing that same day was filed. We
ADOPT the trial court’s May 9, 2019 findings that (1) appellant wishes to prosecute this appeal; (2) appellant, who is indigent, is represented by appointed counsel Kristin Brown ; and (3)
counsel has not abandon ed the appeal and will have a brief filed within 3 5 days of the date of the hearing

. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed no later than June 13 , 2019

.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable John Roach, Jr. ,

Presiding Judge, 296 th Judicial District Court ; Kristin Brown ; and to the Collin County District Attorney

.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5153 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl-4-(3-dodecyl-2, 5- 

dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)–2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. KISSELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1-Acetyl4-(3-dodecyl-2, 5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)–2,2,6,6- 

tetramethylpiperidine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1–ACETYL-4–(3-DODECYL-2, 5-DIOXO-1- 

4 PYRROLIDINYL)–2,2,6,6- 

5 TETRAMETHYLPIPERIDINE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.06 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 1–Acetyl-4–(3-dodecyl-2, 5-dioxo-1-pyrrolidinyl)–2,2,6,6- 

9 tetramethylpiperidine) is amended by striking the date in 

10 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5153 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 January 2006

in Case E-4/05: HOB-vín and The Icelandic State and Áfengis- og tóbaksverslun ríkisins (the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland)

(Free movement of goods — State monopolies of a commercial character — requirements to supply goods on pallets and to include the pallet price in the price of the goods — discrimination against importers of alcoholic beverages — abuse of a dominant position)

(2006/C 100/03)

In Case E-4/05 between HOV-vín and Áfengis- og tóbaksverslun ríkisins — REQUEST to the Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on the interpretation of Articles 11, 16, 57 and 59 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Henrik Bull and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 17 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

----
|                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                        
|                                                                                                     
|New Mexico--East Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                     
|New Mexico--East Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 11     | 1      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 5      | 1      | 3      | 5      | 11    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 11     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Christopher C. Schreiber, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the report on Form 10-K of Akers Biosciences, Inc.; and



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.



Date:
October 21, 2020



| | By: | /s/
    Christopher C. Schreiber                                                                                  
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Christopher
                                         C. Schreiber
        Executive
        Chairman and President
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Everick L. Monk, Appellant

No. 06-23-00046-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 202nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

21F1529-202). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Rambin, Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Everick L. Monk, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 4, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 6060 4 Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435 -5850 www.ca7.uscourts.gov

ORDER May 4, 2022

Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON

- AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

No. 22-1586 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff
- Appellee

v.

KEVIN DIXON,

Defendant

- Appellan t
Originating Case Information :

District Court No: 1:22

- cr

- 00140

- 1

N orthern District of Illinois, Eastern Division District Judge Virginia M. Kendal l

The following are before the court:

1. MOTION TO VACATE DETENTION ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

, filed on April 22, 2022, by counsel for the appellant.

2. G OVERNMEN T’S R ESPONSE T O M OTION T O V ACATE TH E D ISTRIC T

C OUR T’S D ETENTIO N O RDE R , filed on May 2, 2022, by counsel for the appellee.

IT IS ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for pretrial release is DENIED

. 1 See F ED . R. A PP . P. 9(a); 18 U.S.C. §3142. Because this is an appeal from a pretrial detention order, this order resolves the appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 9(a); C IR . R. 9(a).

form name: c7_Order_3J (form ID: 177 )

1 Judge Jackson

- Akiwumi respectfully dissents. She would grant the motion and order the appellant released pending trial.
#### BATES v. STATE.

No. 23510.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1946.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.00.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. All other proceedings appear regular. Consequently there is nothing presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of t'he Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.