alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3M Environmental, Health and 3M Center. Building 0224-05-W-03 

Safety Operations St . Paul, MN 55144-1000 33o~~) a 

October 28 . 2010 

Federal Express 

Director . Chemical Control Division (7405M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

Room 4146 EPA East 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attention : Docket No. OPPT 2004-0112 

PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program 

Subject: Status Report Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between 

and 3M Company and Dyneon LLC dated October 2004 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

On November 19, 2009, U.S. EPA approved the Phase 3 Work Plan under the subject 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Accordingly, and per the MOU, 3M and 

Dyneon have resumed the submittal of quarterly status reports. Enclosed for your 

information and records are two paper copies of the July i to September 30, 2010 

report (one includes a copy of the raw data) and one electronic version that has been 

copied to a CD (also including the raw data). 

Two paper copies of the report (one with a copy of the raw data) and a CD (also 

including the raw data) have also been sent to the referenced docket as noted in the cc 

list below. 

S75 

If there are any questions or comments concerning this matter, please contact me at 65 I 

737-3570. 

Sincerely, 

.--r 

' 

Gary Hohenstein 

Ma ager, Environmental & Regulatory Affairs 

Environmental, Health and Safety Operations 

3M - Building 224-5W-03 

St. Paul, MN 55144 

651 737-3570 

~,Zl~ltJhtil`itelll`tl !i'tT71ITl .C(.>ilZ 

CON!-PJ1VS NO CBI
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION
     I, James E. Laurent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunair Electronics, Inc.;
1. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thereport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
3. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
DATE: February 14, 2005        /s/ James E. Laurent   James E. Laurent   President and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.6 (DELOITTE LOGO)Deloitte & Touche LLP
750 College Road East
Third Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
USA

Tel: +1609 514 3600
www.deloitte.com
 INDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTANTS REPORT To Cendant Mortgage Corporation: We have examined managements assertion about
Cendant Mortgage Corporations compliance with
the minimum servicing standards identified in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers(USAP) as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2003 included in the accompanying
management assertion. Management is responsible
for Cendant Mortgage Corporations compliance
with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on
managements assertion about the entitys
compliance based on our examination. Our examination was made in accordance with
standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test
basis, evidence about Cendant Mortgage
Corporations compliance with the minimum
servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal
determination on Cendant Mortgage Corporations
compliance with the minimum servicing
standards. In our opinion, managements assertion that
Cendant Mortgage Corporation complied with
the aforementioned minimum servicing
standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects. This report is intended solely for the
information and use of the Company, investors in
loans serviced by the Company and their
independent auditors for their evaluation of the
Companys compliance with applicable servicing
agreements, and is not intended to be and should
not be distributed to or used by anyone other
than these specified parties. (DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP)

February 23, 2004 Member of

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu




---



##### 



Cendant Mortgage
3000 Leadenhall Rd.
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 (CENDANT MORTGAGE LOGO) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, Cendant
Mortgage Corporation (the Company) has complied in all
material respects with the minimum servicing standards set
forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of Americas
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As
of and for this same period, the Company had in effect a
fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount
of $140 million and $20 million, respectively. Cendant Mortgage
Corporation/s/ Terence W. Edwards  
 /s/ Mark Danahy  
 /s/ Martin L. Foster
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         961,233
<SECURITIES>                                 3,167,591
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,300,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                       900
<INVENTORY>                                  7,164,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,517,753
<PP&E>                                       4,009,175
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,109,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,593,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          246,982
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       393,237
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,019,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,593,949
<SALES>                                      2,891,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,069,730
<CGS>                                        1,950,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,950,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,079,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
#### TINGLEY v. STATE.

No. 26009.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1952.

G. H. Hamilton, Joe A. Faucett, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Grim. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Charles L. Ford, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 120 days in jail.

Bill of exception No. 4 recites that certain prejudicial argument was made by the State’s counsel; that appellant objected thereto and requested the court to instruct the jury to disregard said argument, but that he was deprived of a ruling by the court because the trial judge was absent from the courtroom when the argument was made and, upon his return to the courtroom, declined to rule on the objection and request. The trial court qualified such bill as follows:

> “The Court cannot certify that the argument of the Assistant District Attorney as complained of above was, or was not, made for the reason stated in this bill; that the Court had for the moment stepped into an adjoining office and did not hear the statement made as alleged.”

It is apparent from the bill of exception as qualified that the trial judge absented himself from the courtroom during the trial and thereby placed himself in a position where he could not hear what transpired; further, that during his absence the argu*193ment for the State continued; that appellant’s counsel considered a remark of the State’s Attorney to be improper and desired to object thereto and have the jury instructed to disregard the remark; and, finally, that appellant was deprived of a ruling on his objection and motion because of the absence of the trial judge.

' Recently, in Gasway v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 248 S.W.2d 942, it was alleged that the judge had gone to sleep during the interrogation of a witness. The statement of facts in that case gave us an accurate picture of everything that occurred during the moment of inattentiveness, and we found therefrom that nothing had transpired that would cause injury to appellant.

Here, however, we conclude that the accused has been deprived of a valuable right to have an impartial arbiter present to rule on his objections and that the cause must be reversed because of such deprivation.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Open EnergyCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending May 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David Saltman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 
| (6)    |   | The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934; and                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (7)    |   | The information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Company. |

 
| /s/  David Saltman       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| David  Saltman           |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                     |   |
| September 26,  2008 |   |

 

----
#### WAFER v. EDWARDS.

No. 15343.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

April 11, 1952.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1952.

*321Butler & Williams and Hubert L. Stone, Jr., all of Robstown, for appellant.

Cline & Cline, of Wharton, for appellee.

RENFRO, Justice.

This suit was brought in the District Court of Wharton County by appellant Wafer against appellee Edwards for actual and exemplary damages growing out of the breach of a share-crop lease contract. The lease was for a five-year period beginning in 1950, covering a 37-acre tract of land. The appellant farmed the tract in 1950, but the appellee would not permit him to cultivate said land for the balance of the lease term.

Trial was had to .the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment for appellee. The court filed extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings that the appellee breached the contract, but that appellant introduced insufficient evidence to support an award of damages, are the only findings material to this appeal.

Appellant contends the court erred in refusing to make twenty-eight fact findings requested by the appellant, his position being that some of appellant’s testimony concerning reasonable profits he would have made in the future is uncontradicted and that the court could not disregard said testimony.

We have examined the entire statement of facts and find that the testimony supports the court’s judgment. The appellant, by his own admission, failed to make any profit during the one year he performed under the contract, but in fact lost money. Although he testified that he would have made a profit in future years, he could give no reasonable explanation why he would be in 'better position to make a profit the remaining four years than he was during the one year he actually cultivated the land. His testimony concerning future profits was highly speculative. The trier of the facts is not ordinarily bound by the un-contradicted testimony of an interested witness unless the testimony is clear, direct, positive and free from contradiction, inconsistencies and suspicion. We find that appellant’s testimony was not of such nature as to require its being taken true as a matter of law.

The appellant claims that since the trial court found that appellee breached the contract, it was mandatory that the trial court award at least nominal damages to appellant.

The record does not show that the appellant at any time requested the court to enter a judgment in his favor for nominal damages. In the absence of such request, the appellate court will not reverse the case merely to permit the award of nominal damages. Mitchell v. Heard, Tex.Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 832; Allbritton v. Mading’s Drug Stores, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 901; Biggs v. Loyd, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 1020, error refused, w. m.; De Garza v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 1078; 3-B Tex.Jur., p. 524, sec. 973.

Finding no reversible error in the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Dwight B. Grizzell, certify that:          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mountain National Bancshares, Inc.;          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;          4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and          5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 2, 2007                                                            /s/ Dwight B. Grizzell   Dwight B. Grizzell   President and Chief Executive Officer
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Rule 400

400-1

RULE 400 FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT - OXIDES OF NITROGEN

(Adopted prior to 2/21/72; Revised 11/19/85; 9/14/99)

A. Applicability

A.1 This Rule shall apply to nitrogen oxides emissions from new and existing 

stationary Fuel Burning Equipment.

A.2 Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing the maintenance, 

alteration, or Modification of an existing Fuel Burning Equipment unit 

which will reduce its mass rate of Air Contaminant emissions.

B. Requirements

A Person shall not build, erect, install, use, or expand any non-mobile Fuel 

Burning Equipment unit within Imperial County unless the discharge of nitrogen 

oxides into the Atmosphere does not exceed 140 pounds per hour of nitrogen 

oxides, calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2);

C. Test Procedures

C.1 All Fuel Burning Equipment covered under Section B shall demonstrate 

compliance through emission compliance testing not less than once every 

12 months, except the testing shall be conducted not less than every 36 

months for emission units which operate less than 100 hours per 12 

month period (as demonstrated by operational logs) and which emit less 

than 5 tons of NOx per 12 month period.

C.2 All emission rates shall be based on an hourly average.

C.3 The results of all compliance and test reports shall be retained for two (2) 

years from the date of each entry and made available to Air Pollution 

Control District personnel upon request. Title V facilities shall maintain 

these reports for five (5) years.

D. Test Methods

D.1 Compliance with the NOx emission limits in Section B shall be determined 

using U.S. EPA Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7E, or any other applicable EPA 

approved test method.

D.2 Measurements of stack flow rates shall be determined using U.S. EPA 

Method 2, or any other applicable EPA approved test method.
Exhibit 32.A
 
 
 
 
 
 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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, of Southern Natural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman G. Holmes, President, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
   
 /s/ Norman G. HolmesNorman G. HolmesPresident(Principal Executive Officer)Southern Natural Gas CompanyNovember 5, 2010
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Natural Gas Company and will be retained by Southern Natural Gas Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### KEELING et al. v. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO.

No. 2967.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 24, 1951.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1951.

Roe, Ralston & McWilliams, Corsicana, for appellant.

Dawson & Dawson, Corsicana, for ap-pellee.

HALE, Justice.

The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the legal effect of Art. 1970-326 of Vernon’s Tex.Civ.Stats., Acts 1941, 47th Leg., p. 553, ch. 350, was to vest original jurisdiction in matters of eminent domain in the District Court of Navarro County and the presiding judge thereof. If so, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed; otherwise, it should be reversed.

In their brief appellants say they “realize that their contention in this appeal is in direct conflict with Brazos River Transmission Electric Cooperative, Inc., v. Trip-lett, County Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S. W.2d 422, decided by this Court December 1, 1949.” By referring to the Triplett case it will be noted that we there relied in part upon our prior holding in the case of Rogers v. Graves, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W. 2d 399 (er. ref.) which involved the validity of the statute upon which the present appeal is based. We know of no reason why we should now change the holding previously made in either of these cases. For the reasons therein set forth we are of the opinion that the legal effect of Art. 1970-326 of Vernon’s Tex.Civ.Stats. was to divest the County Court of Navarro County of jurisdiction over matters of eminent domain and to vest such jurisdiction in the District Court of that county.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.