alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 4.14

(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT COVER)



---



##### 



(TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1)



---



##### 



(TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2)



---



##### 



(TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 1)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 2)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 3)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 4)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 5)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 6)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 7)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 8)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 9)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 10)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 11)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 12)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 13)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 14)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 15)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 16)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 17)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 18)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 19)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 20)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 21)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 22)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 23)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 24)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 25)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 26)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 27)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 28)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT PAGE 29)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT SIGNATURES)



---



##### 



(ASSET SALE AGREEMENT SIGNATURES)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A PAGE 1)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A PAGE 2)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A PAGE 3)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A PAGE 4)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A PAGE 5)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE B PAGE 1)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE B PAGE 2)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE C)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE D)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE E)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE F PAGE 1)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE F PAGE 2)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE G)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE H)



---



##### 



(LETTER DATED MARCH 13, 2003)



---



##### 



(LETTER DATED MARCH 12, 2003)



---



##### 



(LETTER DATED MARCH 12, 2003 PAGE 2)



---



##### 



(LETTER DATED MARCH 12, 2003 PAGE 3)



---



##### 



(SCHEDULE A)
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stephen B. Jackson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Alternative Energy
Sources, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made know to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
quarterly period covered by this report based on our evaluation;

c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Date:       March 13, 2006                  /s/ Stephen Jackson
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Name: Stephen B. Jackson
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
**From:** Spurling, Rebecca [Rebecca.A.Spurling@tsocorp.com] **Sent:** Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:41 PM **To:** Body, Steve; Rose, Keith **Subject:** Tesoro BART Modeling Protocol v2 (3-28-13) **Attachments:** v2 BART Modeling Protocol (3-28-13).docx Updated 

### Page 1 of 1

6/ 16/2014 file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Documentum/CTS/docbases/ProDocbase/config/temp_sessions/272538133 ...
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER

Pandemonium Inc v Northcrest Development LLC

Docket No. 350526

LC No. 18

- 012741

- CB Amy Ronayne Krause

Presiding Judge

Michael J. Riordan

Colleen A. O’Brien

Judges

The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's opinion issued June 3, 2021,

is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order.

_______________________________ Presiding Judge
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-703 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 11/5/2012

Sample Number:124461-001 Date Collected:10/15/2012 09:10 Date Received:10/15/2012 

### 1st Stage Feed

Units Parameter Result RL Analysis ByAnalysis Date/TimeMethod MDL Data Qual ug/L Arsenic, As 23.9 0.1 DPC EPA 200.8 0.03 10/22/2012 14:47 ug/L Beryllium, Be < 0.1 0.5 DAM EPA 200.7 0.1 10/26/2012 17:20 U ug/L Selenium, Se 511 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 10/22/2012 14:47 mg/L Aluminum, Al 0.0476 0.001 DPC EPA 200.8 0.0003 10/22/2012 14:47 mg/L Boron, B 278 0.01 DAM EPA 200.7 0.002 10/26/2012 17:20 mg/L Iron, Fe 0.431 0.01 DAM EPA 200.7 0.002 10/26/2012 17:20 mg/L Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N5.37 0.5 DMM EPA 351.2 0.1 10/19/2012 mg/L Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2 as N 17.6 6 TDF EPA 300.1 1 10/26/2012 13:39 mg/L Phosphorus, Total, P 0.21 0.05 DMM EPA 365.4 0.01 10/19/2012 mg/L Residue, Filterable, TDS 14900 20 MSO SM20 2540C 6 10/18/2012 mg/L Sulfate, SO4 6080 50 CRJ EPA 300.1 20 10/26/2012



### Sample Number:124461-002Date Collected:10/15/2012 09:10 Date Received:10/15/2012 

### Bioreactor Effluent

Units Parameter Result RL Analysis ByAnalysis Date/TimeMethod MDL Data Qual ug/L Arsenic, As 2.25 0.1 DPC EPA 200.8 0.03 10/22/2012 14:52 ug/L Beryllium, Be < 0.1 0.5 DAM EPA 200.7 0.1 10/26/2012 17:27 U ug/L Selenium, Se 0.9 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 10/22/2012 14:52 mg/L Aluminum, Al 3.20 0.001 DPC EPA 200.8 0.0003 10/22/2012 14:52 mg/L Boron, B 278 0.01 DAM EPA 200.7 0.002 10/26/2012 17:27 mg/L Iron, Fe 2.06 0.01 DAM EPA 200.7 0.002 10/26/2012 17:27 mg/L Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N3.28 0.5 DMM EPA 351.2 0.1 10/19/2012 mg/L Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2 as N < 1 6 TDF EPA 300.1 1 10/26/2012 13:59 U mg/L Phosphorus, Total, P 0.08 0.05 DMM EPA 365.4 0.01 10/19/2012 mg/L Residue, Filterable, TDS 14300 20 MSO SM20 2540C 6 10/18/2012 mg/L Sulfate, SO4 6150 50 CRJ EPA 300.1 20 10/26/2012

Mountaineer Plant, 124461 Page 1 of 2

### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 11/5/2012

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.comTel. 614-836-4224
Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 124461 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1316 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-186-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 23, 2010

Decided November 30, 2010

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

TERRENCE T. EVANS

, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 1631

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

MARK A. LEAZIER,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:09

‐ CR

‐ 00015(01)RM

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Mark Leazier’s felony convictions made it a federal crime for him to possess a gun,

see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), but an Indiana law

‐ enforcement officer investigating Leazier

for hunting deer illegally caught him shooting a 9mm pistol. The officer informed federal

agents, and Leazier was prosecuted under § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty and was

sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment, 10 months below the bottom of his guidelines

range. Leazier filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer moves to withdraw

because he cannot identify any nonfrivolous argument to pursue. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Leazier has not responded to counsel’s submission. See C IR

. R. 51(b).

We confine our review to the potential issues identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief.

See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel verified that Leazier

does not want his guilty plea set aside and thus appropriately omits possible challenges to 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

F ED



### . R. A PP



### . P. 32.1No. 10

‐ 1631 Page 2

the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667,

670

‐ 72 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel reports that he searched the record for possible challenges to Leazier’s

sentence and considers arguing that the district court erred in counting two of his prior

convictions as felony crimes of violence, which yielded a base offense level of 24 under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). Leazier had objected that one of those convictions, for robbery, was

reduced to misdemeanor theft, but, as counsel notes, Leazier withdrew that objection after

reviewing the written judgment. He thus waived the objection, and so we agree with

counsel that an appellate claim would be frivolous. See United States v. Venturella, 585 F.3d

1013, 1019 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1547 (2010).

Counsel also considers arguing that Leazier’s prison sentence is unreasonably long.

But the prison term is below the guidelines range and thus is presumptively reasonable. See

United States v. Liddell

, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. George

, 403 F.3d 470,

473 (7th Cir. 2005). No circumstance warrants disregarding that presumption here, so we

agree with counsel that it would be frivolous to challenge the reasonableness of Leazier’s

sentence.

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
23.1 CONSENT OF BAUMANN, RAYMONDO & COMPANY, PA, DATED MARCH 26, 2004


                     [Baumann, Raymondo & Company, PA logo]




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:  Restaurant Training Corporation
     Form 10-KSB

Gentlemen:

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report
and to all references to our firm included in or made a part of Restaurant
Training Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.

Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.
Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
March 26, 2004
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 Annual Report of H&E Equipment Services L.L.C. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Engquist, President and 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:



|/s/JOHN M. ENGQUISTJohn M. Engquist President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

September 28,
2005

---



QuickLinks
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Alaska Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 67     | 1,324  | 231   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 104    | 61     | 22     | 742    | 395    | 552    | 757    | 67     | 24,751 | 136   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 99     | 239    | 21     | 109    | 49     | 51     | 171    | 99     | 125    | 3,525 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,093  | 335    | 118    | 235    | 207    | 154    | 376    | 112    | 4,068  | 108   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 452    | 206    | 339    | 2,400  | 685    | 2,217  | 1,839  | 0      | 569    | 120   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 35,652 | 4,332  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Shahin A. Niroomand, Appellant, v George H. McCoy, as Chief Executive Officer of Erie County Medical Center, et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Jones v Marcy,*135 AD2d 887). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.—renewal.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

d0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141194

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141194 COA: 296562 Genesee CC: 07-020153-FC CECIL RAY THORNTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 10, 2010 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.

D AVIS 

### , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not par ticipating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
Exhibit 32.1


                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

I, James E. Laurent, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sunair
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company"), have executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
(the "Report"). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this certificate as of the
12th day of August 2003.

/s/ James E. Laurent
-------------------------------------
James E. Laurent
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### CREMONA v. STATE.

No. 22532.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1943.

T. L. Tyson, of Corsicana, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the sale of intoxicating liquor in Robertson County, it being alleged that the sale thereof was prohibited by law as a result of a local option election held in said county on October 24, 1917.

In proof of the allegation that the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited in said county, the state offered in evidence minutes of the commissioners’ court showing the receipt of a petition for an election, its order thereon, and an order of the court declaring the result of the election. It is further shown that the order declaring the result of the election in prohibiting the sale of liquor was directed to be published in a newspaper in the county. It was also shown that notices were duly posted for the election. It is not shown that the order declaring the result of the election was ever published. Under the frequent holdings of this court, the State has failed to show that the sale of intoxicating liquor was legally prohibited. Watson v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 632, 122 S.W.2d 311.

There are other questions raised in the appeal but we do not deem it necessary to discuss them in view of the foregoing holding.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.