alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "Van Der Meyden, Henk" <Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com>, "Kirkland, Cheryl" <Cheryl.Kirkland@alcoa.com>, "Van Der Meyden,

Henk" < Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com>

Date: 01/13/2011 04:56 PM

Subject: Revised Files for Alumax of South Carolina

R ochelle,

Attached, please find the revised kmz, ReleasePoint, and CategoryHAPs

files for the Alumax of South Carolina facility (NEI41217).

<<CategoryHAPs_NEI41217_RevisedJan2011.xls>>

<<AlumaxOfSouthCarolina_RevisedJan2011.kmz>>

<<ReleasePoint_NEI412 17_revisedJan2011_RoofVentsAsAreaSource.xls>>

The kmz file includes both the emission points and the property

boundary. The Primary Aluminum MACT Sources are yellow dots; all other

sources are green dots. The coordinates for the sources were corrected

in both the ReleasePoint, and CategoryHAPs sheets.

We used the fugitive (area) source approach to represent the four

Potline Roof Vents and the Anode Bake Oven Roof Vent. Stack Parameters

were adjusted accordingly. Emission rates were reviewed and comme nts

added as appropriate. In all cases where we made a change or comment,

the cell is shaded red.

Please contact me if any questions arise during the review of this

information.

Best regards,

Henk

Henk van der Meyden, PG

Environmental Manager

Alcoa

- Mt. Holly

Office: (843) 572

- 5361

Cell: (843) 296

- 3359

Fax: (843) 572

- 5378
Exhibit 12.1 CERTIFICATION I, TANG Yuxiang, certify that: 1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Yantai Dahua Holdings Company Limited;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;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.The companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:a.Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c.Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a.All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 13, 2007 /s/ TANG YuxiangChairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Estate of Chapman: Stites and others, Appellants, vs. Chapman and others, Respondents.

*January 11*—

February *6, 1951.*

*443For the appellants there were briefs by *Peterson & Kittel-sen*of Monroe, and oral argument by *Marshall L. Peterson.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Ervin W. Johnson*of Darlington, and *Gilbert Barnard*of Elkhorn, for Ruth Chapman, Carol Jean Rudd, and Jeraldine Ruth Gordee, and by *John J. Boyle*of Darlington, guardian *ad litem*for Betty Lou Chapman, and oral orgument by *Mr. Johnson*and *Mr. Barnard.*

Gehl, J.

It is not claimed by appellants that William Steffen is not qualified to act. It is their claim that, in the absence of any showing that the bank is not qualified to act, its nomination by the testator compels its appointment as successor trustee.

When the bank renounced its right to serve as trustee it left the estate in the same position as if no one had been nominated in the will. 21 Am. Jur., Executors and Administrators, p. 430, sec. 99. It took itself out of the matter for all purposes and for all time, at least until the court might be called upon to appoint a successor. When the need for the appointment of a successor arose the bank was eligible for appointment just as was any other qualified person. But its position was no different from that of any other qualified person and could claim no right to retract its renunciation and present itself as the testator's nominee.

Upon the death of Jay W. Chapman it became the function of the court to appoint a successor. The judge has wide discretion, and, although the. wishes of the beneficiaries may be *444considered, it is not bound to appoint their choice or the choice of some of them.

Appellants urge that it is clear that testator did not want one of his family or any South Wayne individual to serve. That fact appeared just as clearly when appellants requested in 1937 that the wishes of their deceased husband and father be ignored and that his son be appointed trustee. They are not now in very good position to insist that decedent’s wish be complied with.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 347 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 347

To redesignate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota, as 
   the ``Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 1999

   Mr. Grams introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota, as 
   the ``Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA WILDERNESS, 
              MINNESOTA.

    (a) In General.--In recognition of Senator Hubert H. Humphrey's 
commitment to the preservation of Minnesota's natural resources and 
dedication to ensuring public access to those resources through 
establishment of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota, 
by Public Law 95-495 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 92 Stat. 1649), the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness shall be known and designated as the 
``Hubert H. Humphrey Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, 
Minnesota, shall be deemed to be a reference to the Hubert H. Humphrey 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32
 
 HCi VioCare
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Sotirios Leontaritis, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President of HCi VioCare (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.        The Company's Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2014 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "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 at the end of the period covered by the Report.
  
 DATE: August 19, 2014
By:
/s/ Sotirios LeontaritisName:
Sotirios LeontaritisTitle:
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer & President(Principal Executive Officer)(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7769
KEVIN MICHAEL HIGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusJOHN DOE #1, Police Officer; JOHN DOE #2, Sergeant; JOHN DOE NUMBER THREE, Police Officer; JOHN DOE #4, Sergeant; JOHN DOE #5, Police Officer; JANE DOE #1, Police Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and KURT SCHMOKE, Mayor City of Baltimore;LAWRENCE BELL, President Baltimore City Counsel; THOMAS FRAZIER, Commissioner, Baltimore City Police Department, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-5-WMN) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.1 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); FED . R. C IV . P. 54(b). 2 See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993). 3 Kevin Michael Higgins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's claims against Defendants John and Jane Doe were dismissed without prejudice due to his failure to effect service of process. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 1 Because Appellant could save this action byproviding the court with John and Jane Doe's true names and addresses in order for process to be served, the dismissal that Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.4 DISMISSED
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 Quarterly Report of AI Document Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arvin Woods, 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   Date: November 20, 2015   /s/Marvin Woods Marvin Woods Title: Chief Executive Officer
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Riverdale Mining Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vladimir Vaskevich, Chief Executive Officer 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 26th day of November, 2007.





| | VLADIMIR VASKEVICH                                                     
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Vladimir Vaskevich, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer











---
Exhibit 99.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Information
Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Vincent A. Chippari, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 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.  /s/
Vincent A. Chippari Vincent
A. Chippari Executive
Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer March
28, 2003
Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of Movie Gallery, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 6, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. T. Malugen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

Date:
November 20, 2002

|/s/J. T. MALUGENName: J. T. Malugen
Its: Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      624,699
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               115,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            739,722
<PP&E>                                      209,334
<DEPRECIATION>                              (7,431)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              6,655,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,331,763
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    144,870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (21,281,089)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                6,655,251
<SALES>                                     99,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            99,833
<CGS>                                       42,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,265,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,208,261)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,208,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (8,229,299)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (1,420,172)
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (10,857,732)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.39)


</TABLE>
#### State ex rel. Kidder, Appellant, vs. Steele and others, Respondents.

*September 17*

October *13, 1942.*

*Willis E. Donley*of Menomonie, for the appellant.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Higbee & Higbee,*attorneys for the common council of La Crosse, and *Otto M.*
      *199
      *Schlabach,*attorney for *Fred E. Steele,*all of La Crosse, and 'oral argument by *Mr. Jesse E. Higbee*and *Mr. Schlabach.'*

Fritz, J.

The appellant, Joseph K. Kidder, who was appointed and serving under sec. 62.13 (1), Stats., as a member of the board of police and fire commissioners of the city of La Crosse, contends that by reason of the general exception ’and inhibition created by sub. (4) of sec. 17.12, Stats.,.the provisions in sec. 17.12, which authorize the common council of a city to remove an appointive officer thereof for cause, are not applicable to the removal of a police and fire commissioner, and therefore the defendant common council is without authority to proceed with a hearing on charges filed as basis for the removal of Kidder as a commissioner.

Sub. (4) of sec. 17.12, Stats., reads:

> *“General exception.*But no officer of any city, appointed according to merit and fitness under and subject to a civil service or to'a police and fire commission law, or whose removal is governed by such a law, shall be removed otherwise than as therein provided.”

Under the plain and obvious meaning of the terms in that provision, the application of the exception- and inhibition created thereby is limited to officers (1) “appointed according to merit and fitness under and subject to a civil service or to a police and fire commission law, or” (2) “whose removal is governed by such a law.” Under the police and fire commission law, sec. 62.13, Stats., the appointment of a commissioner is not required by any provision therein to be made according to merit and fitness under and subject to either a civil service .or to the police and fire commission law. No such test as to •qualifications or eligibility is prescribed or required by any law in relation to the appointment of such a commissioner. Neither is there any provision in sec. 62.13, Stats., which can be deemed to govern or be applicable to the removal of a *200commissioner, — although in sub. (5) thereof there are provisions governing removals of chiefs and subordinates of police and fire departments appointed under either sub. (3)' or (4) thereof. Consequently, as the exception created by sec. 17.12 (4), Stats., is not applicable to Kidder as such commissioner, the common council is authorized to proceed, under provisions in sec. 17.12 (1) (c) and (d), Stats., in relation to the charges filed as basis for his removal as such.officer, and therefore the orders under review must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Orders affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.22 


 


 


Prof. Dr. med. Oliver Wiedow


Forstweg 55


D-24105 Kiel


Germany


Kiel, on June 10th, 2014


Proteo, Inc.


Att:  Chief Executive Officer 



Ms. Birge Bargmann


2102 Business Center Drive


Irvine, CA 92612


USA


 



	 	Re: 	Elafin License Agreement 


 


Dear Ms. Bargmann,


 


This is to confirm certain agreements and
understandings reached between me and Proteo, Inc. in May 2014 based on the following background:


 


Pursuant to the provisions of the license
agreement between Proteo, Inc. (hereinafter “Licensee“) and myself (hereinafter “Licensor“; Licensee and
Licensor collectively the “Parties”) dated December 30th, 2000 as amended on December 23rd, 2008
(hereinafter the “License Agreement“), Licensee promised to pay an aggregate amount of 660,000 Euros in certain installments
to Licensor. In December 2007, December 2008 and February 2012, Licensee paid to Licensor 30,000 Euros per year and no other payments
were made under the License Agreement to Licensor as of June 10th, 2014. In December 2012, Licensor agreed in writing
to waive the non-payment defaults and agreed to defer the due dates of the payments for the outstanding balance of 570,000 Euro
with installments due on April 15, 2015 (330,000 €), on December 31, 2015 (120,000 €) and on December 31, 2016 (120,000
€).


 


I herewith confirm that based on the foregoing
we have agreed on the following in May 2014:


 


	 	1. 	The Parties herewith agree that Licensor defers to April 30, 2018 the installments payable by Licensee in the total amount of 570,000 Euros, which otherwise would be due on April 15, 2015 (330,000 €), on December 31, 2015 (120,000 €) and on December 31, 2016 (120,000 €) (hereinafter the “Deferral”). 


 


	 	2. 	In the event that the Company's financial condition improves, the Parties would endeavor to enter in good faith negotiations to accelerate the payments. 


 


	 	3. 	Neither the Deferral under Section 1 hereof nor the willingness to negotiate accelerated payments as provided for in Section 2 hereof, would constitute a waiver of or estoppel to Licensor‘s rights to already existing or future payment obligations under the License Agreement. 


 


Please confirm by respective countersignature
that you are in agreement with this letter and with this confirmation of our agreement from May 2014.


 


Kind regards,


/s/ Oliver Wiedow 


Prof. Dr. med. Oliver Wiedow


 


We agree to the foregoing


Proteo, Inc., on June 13th ,
2014


/s/ Birge Bargmann 


Birge Bargmann, Chief Executive Officer