alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder
, Alston and Senior Judge Willis

NPM, INC. 25 AND

MERCHANTS OF VIRGINIA, G.S.I.A. MEMORANDUM OPINION *

v. Record No. 0246

- 1 3

- 4 PER CURIAM JUNE 11, 2013 JOHN BENJAMIN RODGERS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS ’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

( Joshua M. Wulf ; Angela F. Gibbs ; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C

. , on brief) , for appellants

. ( Robert J. Strayhorne, on brief), for appellee

.

NPM, Inc. 25 and Merchants of Virginia, G.S.I.A. (appellants) appeal rulin g s of the

Workers’ Compensation Commission regarding claims for compensation relating to the January

8, 2010 work

- related accident of John Benjamin Rodgers (appellee) . Appellants claim the

c ommission erred: 1) in finding that 25% , rather than 17% , of app ellee’s 37% permanent partial
disability rating for his left lower extremity was attributable to work

- related injury ; 2) in
crediting the opinions of appellee’s treating physicians, rather than the physician who evaluated
appellee at appellants’ request, i n apportioning that disability rating; and 3) in finding that injury
to appellee’s right knee was a compensable consequence of appellee’s work

- related accident.

W e have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See
Rodgers v. NPM, Inc.
, VWC File VA000

- 0020

- 9041 ( Jan

. 10, 20 1 3 ). We dispense with oral
argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2

- in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code

§ 17.1

- 403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen M. Siedow, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Petrocorp Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on my mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

Date:August 10, 2009

                                                                                     /s/ Stephen M. Siedow

 Stephen M. Siedow, CFO
EXHIBIT 25

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                   CONCERNING
                              FORM 10-K FISCAL 1999


         Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints JOHN
R. HELMEN his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in
any and all capacities to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1999, and any or all amendments to such Annual Report on
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in person, ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue thereof.

Signature                                                       Date
---------                                                       ----

/s/John R. Helmen, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director (Principal executive officer)            March 10, 2000


/s/Leslie A. Willig                                             March 10, 2000
Leslie A. Willig, Chairman


/s/Curtis R. Jackels                                            March 10, 2000
Curtis R. Jackels, Vice President - Finance
(principal financial and principal
accounting officer)


/s/James R. Loomis                                              March 10, 2000
James R. Loomis, Director


/s/Thomas J. Cassady                                            March 10, 2000
Thomas J. Cassady, Director
Exhibit
32





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 Xtreme Green Products Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sanford
Leavitt, Chief Executive Officer, and Neil Roth, Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1) This
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




/s/
      Sanford LeavittSanford
      LeavittChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      March 2, 2010





/s/
      Neil RothNeil
      RothChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      March 2, 2010
rbo_ex101.htm

 EXHIBIT 10.1
  
  
  
  
  	 
	1

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	2

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	3

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	4

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	5

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	6

	 

	 


  
  
  
  	7
```

CONFIRMING STATEMENT

    This statement confirms that the undersigned, Kimberly J. Ellington, has authorized and designated, Jennifer Mainord, Deanna Brass or Rhonda Bost, to execute and file on the undersigned's behalf, all Form 3, 4, and 5 (including amendments thereto) that the undersigned may be required to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a result of the undersigned's ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation.  The authority of Jennifer Mainord, Deanna Brass or Rhonda Bost under this statement shall continue until the undersigned is no longer required to file Form 3, 4, and 5 with regard to the undersigned ownership or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation, unless earlier revoked in writing.  The undersigned acknowledges Jennifer Mainord, Deanna Brass or Rhonda Bost are not assuming any of the undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        __/s/ Kimberly J. Ellington______
                        Kimberly J. Ellington

Date: December 8, 2014
```
OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

26) ll-C-23 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:44 PM Sheet 26 of 79 

P.1 
P.2 

rr-c- 23 

JUL 3 j 1987 

Mr. Jim J. Tozz i 

Multinational Business Services, Inc. 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

'•NVIRONMfcNTAL HROlKHlON 

AGENCY 

AU151 8 1987 

GFINTRAS. DOCKLT 

Dear Mr. Tozzi: 

This is in response to your letter of July 16, 1587 

concerning our consultation with the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the safety related aspects of 

onboard refueling control systems. In your letter you cited 

the NHTSA letter of June 11, 1987 presenting the Dep^rt^ent of 

Transportation's views on the safety aspects of the rulemaking 

envisioned by SPA. You particularly highlighted the need for 

EPA to respond to the NHTSA staff comments on our draft safety 

analysis. 

VJe agree with the need for EFA to respond to the auestions 

raised by NHTSA. We have done this through revisions to our 

draft safety analysis dealing with NHTSA's comments. Enclosed 

please find a copy of our revised report for your review. 

As you know, NHTSA indicated in 

no technological breakthroughs are 

develop safe 

its letter its 

necessary to 

onboard systems, so long as sufficient 

provided. In recent submissions to Congressman 

both tne Automobile Importers of 

Vehicle Manufacturers Association 

that safe onboard systems can 

leadtime. AIA stated that "while 

belief that 

desiqn and 

leadtimp is 

John Dingell, 

America (AIA) and the .Motor 

(MViMA) stated their beliefs 

be designed given adequate 

we think onboard systems can 

be designed to be safely incorporated 

adequate leadtime must be allowed.. 

"additions to fuel systems do not need to compromise safety, 

so long a^ manufacturers are "given sufficient lead-time 

ensure no compromise." 

into a motor vehicle, 

" MVMA agrees that 

II 

to 
P.3 

Thus, EPA believes that the key issue related to safety is 

that of leadtime. We have indicated this in our onboard 

proposal, and fully expect to receive substantial comment in 

this area. As we have also indicated in our proposal, because 

of the importance of the safety Question, we plan to reprono;?*? 

the rule to assess any changed circumstances after we receive 

comments from the Department of Transportation. 

Thank you for your comments on this matter. Since ve are 

now in a forraal rulemaking period, any further comments you 

wish to make related to our proposal should also be subriitt^? 

to the public docket. They will then he fully considered along 

with other comments wo receive. 

Sincerely, 

jDONB.CLm0* 

J. Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Air & Radiation 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket A-87-11
#### KENNEDY v. STATE.

No. 14129.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1932.

Ira Lawley, of Groesbeck, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

Attention is called to the fact that, notwithstanding the appeal in this case was perfected by the giving of the required notice of appeal on February 13, 1930, the record upon appeal was not received by the clerk of this court until December 18, 1930, or more than ten months after the appeal was perfected. Our statute requires that such records be filed within ninety days from the time such appeal was perfected. See article 1839, Rev. Civ. Stat., and article 841 et seq., C. C. P.

An affidavit has been filed with the record in this case by the clerk of the trial court, from which we derive information that the delay in such filing was not the result of negligence or fault of .said clerk. Such being the case, this appeal will be dismissed, of which action the clerk of this court will at once give notice by registered mail both to appellant and to his attorney, and fifteen days from the date of this dismissal will be allowed in which said parties may show that the delay in such filing was not due to their acts or the acts of either of them, upon which showing being satisfactorily made, this appeal will be reinstated. This court in Northcutt v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 577, 158 S. W. 1004, called attention to a similar situation, and stated a rule which this court will be inclined to enforce.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

HAWKINS, J.

On the 22d day of April, 1931, the appeal was dismissed for the reasons appearing in such order. Within the 15 days allowed, appellant filed his motion to reinstate said appeal, supporting same by his own affidavit and that of his attorney. The facts averred in those affidavits were much at variance with those set out in the affidavit of the clerk of the trial court, and this court issued an order, directing that it be served on appellant and his attorney and the clerk of the trial court, directing them to file by October 7, 1931, additional affidavits for the information of this court regarding the matter. The clerk of the trial court has complied with such order, and has filed in this court her own additional affidavit and also those of the deputy district clerk and the trial judge. Although service of the order of this court is shown to have been made upon both appellant and his attorney, no further or additional affidavits have been filed in this court supporting appellant’s contention regarding the delayed filing of the transcript in this court. The additional affidavits which were filed by the state support the district clerk’s original affidavit, and confirm the view entertained when the appeal was dismissed.

The motion to reinstate will therefore be overruled.
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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Pep BoysManny, Moe & Jack (the
"Company") for the year ended January 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

I,
Raymond L. Arthur, Executive Vice President and 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 to my knowledge:



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.

Date: April 12, 2010

by: /s/ RAYMOND L. ARTHUR Raymond L. Arthur Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78975-78980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22111]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List), based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them. Additionally, OFAC is publishing updates to the identifying 
information of two persons currently included on the SDN List.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for applicable date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 
202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-
4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 
tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    A. On September 19, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons and entities are blocked under the relevant sanctions 
authorities listed below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 78976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE24.006


[[Page 78977]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE24.007


[[Page 78978]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE24.008


[[Page 78979]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE24.009


[[Page 78980]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26SE24.010

    Authorities: E.O. 13722, 81 FR 14943, 3 CFR, 2016 Comp., p. 446; 
E.O. 14024, 86 FR 20249, 3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 542, as amended by E.O. 
14114, 88 FR 89271, 3 CFR, 2023 Comp., p. 721.

    Dated: September 19, 2024.
Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-22111 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
Phone call with Chris Surak, CPA Director of Certification

703-724-1128 ext. 231

1/21/2011, Contacted by Dave Mancinelli, Abt Associates Inc.

Call Notes:

 Three fees necessary to become certified:

1. Administrative Fees

o $1,500/quarter = $6,000/year

2. Testing Costs

o Initial Testing Costs

 Minimum of 5 test results required to make the correlation, for 

each product type and production line

 $400/test

 To ship PB, 3 panels @ 48” x 55.5”, assume 0.75” thickness on 

a palette wrapped with protective boards on top and bottom 

might weigh around 500 lbs

 Cost $100-$200 for shipping via third-party commercial 

shipping carrier – they don’t generally see companies shipping 

the boards themselves (ex: White Trucking)

o Recurring Testing Costs

 Quarterly tests for each product type @ $400/test

 Panels to be tested are selected during on-site audit and shipped 

to TPC for testing

3. Audits

o Quarterly Audit Costs

 On-site audit conducted quarterly for each product type

 $450/audit

o Monthly Audit Costs

 “Desk audit” performed over the phone

 $200/audit

 Other Costs

o Training Costs

 Generally rolled into certification costs

 If someone wanted to, they would be able to go to the CPA lab, and 

CPA would set an hourly rate

 Sometimes the resin manufacturer will help the mill train employees

 QC employees are checked during the initial audit

o Recordkeeping & Labeling

 They deal with board manufacturers and fabricators

 Most often these companies already have recordkeeping and labeling 

systems – it is not a major task to adjust these things

o Setting Up In-house Testing

 Most small operations do not already have QC systems in place

 They need to determine if it is cheaper to build a small chamber lab or 

outsource daily testing

 $135/test + shipping to outsource
 Most, if not all, PB/MDF manufacturers test in-house

 For HWPW mills where CARB exemption is the ultimate goal, 

they may decide to outsource testing

o testing is only needed 1-4/week for each product type 

and product line (based on volume)

o ULEF exemption requires testing for 6 months

o NAF exemption requires testing for 3 months

 They see a lot of HWPW mills decide to outsource testing
##### 





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




1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/  J. Chris BrewsterJ. Chris BrewsterChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)August 14, 2007
Ricardo GarzaAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 9, 2014

Nos. 04-14-00232-CR, 04-14-00233-CR, & 04-14-00234-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

Ricardo GARZA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 413042, 413041, & 413040

The Honorable Michael La Hood, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 04-

14-00232-CR, 04-14-00233-CR, and 04-14-00234-CR consolidated. The parties must file motions, 

briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the 

case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate 

and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in 

the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single appeal, 

and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single appeal, with 

the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. The 

court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court 

on this 9th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court