alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
g adoption of the Plan

p

federal 8-hour ozone nonattainmentby their Boards of Directors. The Clean Air Act requires areas to meet

a reasonable further progress requirement reduce ozone-forming pollutant to Sacramento ozone nonattainmentemissions by

a minimum of three percent per year. The

portions of Placer, El Dorado, area includes all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties, and Solano, and Sutter Counties.

commitments

This Plan

to achieve

proposes to use existing control strategies and approved control measure

requirements for reasonable emission reductions necessary for compliance with the Clean Air Act

Sacramento Region met further progress. The Plan also includes

a demonstration that the

reductions during the period

the required 15 percent volatile organic compound (VOC) emission from 1990 to 1996. In addition, emission budgets for transportation this Plan will establish updated for the region. The FEIR conformity purposes and an updated emissions inventory mitigation measures that includes reduce

a description of potentially significant effects on air quality and those effects to an insignificant level.

Qualify

The

Management

FEIR and

District

Plan will

web

be available for review on the Sacramento Metropolitan Air site at www.airguality.org. You may also request

a copy at the

be available

district offices

by January

listed below.

16, 2006.

The Plan will be available by December 20, 2005. The FEIR will

districts’ Board of Directors during The Plan will be considered for adoption by the individual air public hearings in January or February 2006.

FEIR and

By

Plan.

this notice,

Oral and

all interested

written parties are specifically requested to testify on the proposed

at the public hearings, or testimony may be directed to each district’s Board of Directors sent to the district offices, as set forth below:

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Office: 777 12th Street,

3 Floor, Sacramento, California 95814 Contact: Greg Tholen, (916) 874-4800

Hearing:

9:30

Sacramento

AM., Thursday, County Board Chambers, 700

H Street, Sacramento, CA January 26, 2006

Feather River Air Quality Management District

Office: 938 14th Street, Marysville, CA 95901 Contact: Yachun Chow, (530) 634-7659

Hearing: Yuba County Government Center, 915

8th

4:00 P.M., Monday, February Street, Conference Rm. 1, Marysville, CA 6, 2006
Office: 1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616

Contact: Dan O’Brien (530) 757-3673 —

Hearing: 1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103, Davis, CA

9:00 A.M., Wednesday, February 8, 2006 —

Placer County Air Pollution Control District

Office: DeWitt Center, 11464 “B” Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603

Contact: Yushuo Chang (530) 889-7130

Hearing: Placer County Board Chambers, 175 Fulweiler Avenue, Auburn, CA

2:30 P.M., Thursday, February 9, 2006

Yolo

Solano Air Quality Manage
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.22

                     [TO BE RE-TYPED ON ISSUER LETTERHEAD]

                                                   [DATE]


Attention: General Counsel's Office
The Depository Trust Company
55 Water Street, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10041-0099

RE:  [ISSUER'S NAME]
     [DESCRIPTION AND CUSIP NUMBER OF SECURITIES TO BE EXCHANGED]
     Exchange of Securities Issued Pursuant to Rule 144A


Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to the Letter of Representations addressed to DTC dated
[DATE] ("Letter of Representations") from [ISSUER NAME] ("Issuer") and [AGENT
NAME] ("Agent") in connection with the above-referenced issue (the "Old
Securities"). If such Letter of Representations is not the current version
reflecting DTC's current Operational Arrangements, it is understood that the
Letter of Representations is subject to DTC's current procedures as stated in
DTC's current Operational Arrangements which may be viewed on DTC's web-site
"www.dtc.org."

     Issuer and Agent hereby notify you that [ISSUER SHALL ELECT ONE OF THE
FOLLOWING AND CROSS OUT THE OTHER]:

     1. On [EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRATION STATEMENT], a Registration Statement
under the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to [DESCRIPTION AND CUSIP NUMBER
OF NEW SECURITIES] (the "New Securities") was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Following the consummation of an exchange
offer, the global note(s) representing the Old Securities will be cancelled.

     2. Issuer and Agent hereby notify you that as of [EFFECTIVE DATE], a shelf
registration with respect to [DESCRIPTION AND CUSIP NUMBER OF NEW SECURITIES]
(the "New Securities") was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

     Issuer and Agent agree that, with the exception of the Representations for
the Rule 144A Securities [and the Regulation S Securities], the Letter of
Representations shall remain in full force and effect with respect to the New
Securities.


                                   Very truly yours,
                                   [NAME OF ISSUER]


                                   By:
                                      --------------------------------------
                                         [Authorized Officer's Signature]


                                   [NAME OF AGENT]

                                   By:
                                      --------------------------------------
                                         [Authorized Officer's Signature]
#### J. I. Case Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Clark M. Robertson*and *Howard R. Johnson*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John E. Martin,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
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 on Form 10-Q of Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Clark M. Mower, Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas N. Strong, Chief Financial Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 14, 2009 /s/Clark M. Mower Clark M. Mower Chief Executive Officer   Dated: May 14, 2009 /s/Thomas N. Strong Thomas N. Strong Chief Financial Officer
#### Sean McCarthy, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[772 NYS2d 589]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme *446Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.) dated October 17, 2002, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on General Municipal Law § 205-e.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on General Municipal Law § 205-e is denied, and that cause of action is reinstated against the City of New York.

The plaintiff, a police officer who was injured while on duty, contends that the defendant City of New York is liable for damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (1) based upon proof that the City created, or failed to remedy, a dangerous condition existing within a sidewalk tree well, in violation of the duty imposed on it by New York City Charter § 2903 (b) (2) *(see generally Cosgriff v City of New York,*93 NY2d 539 [1999], *affg*241 AD2d 382 [1997]; *see also Grgich v City of New York,*2 AD3d 680 [2003]; *Hayes v City of New York,*264 AD2d 610 [1999]; *Simons v City of New York,*252 AD2d 451 [1998]; *Palazzolla v City of New York,*248 AD2d 250 [1998]; *Giblin v City of New York,*267 AD2d 127 [1999]). The City did not refute this contention.

The City’s only argument is that the order should be affirmed insofar as appealed from due to the inadequacy of the description of the “manner in which the claim arose” contained in the plaintiffs notice of claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; *cf.*General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; § 205-e [2]; *D’Alessandro v New York City Tr. Auth.,*83 NY2d 891 [1994]). This argument was improperly raised for the first time in the City’s reply papers, and the plaintiff did not have a fair opportunity to address this issue. For that reason alone, this argument does not support an affirmance of the order appealed from *(see Medugno v City of Glen Cove,*279 AD2d 510 [2001]; *Cumpston v Marcinkowska,*275 AD2d 340 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J., Altman, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-15-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,353,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,660,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,647,120
<PP&E>                                     220,211,537
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,714,423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             238,610,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,999,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 30,906,750
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,545,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               238,610,128
<SALES>                                     47,978,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            48,245,660
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,321,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,830,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,069,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,023,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,914,616
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,108,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,108,951
<EPS-BASIC>                                   2,002.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1,708.36


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24314]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m. EDT, Friday, September 25, 2024.

PLACE: Virtual meeting.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement matters. In the event that the 
time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will 
be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.cftc.gov/.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-
5964.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: October 16, 2024.
Robert Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-24314 Filed 10-16-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6896
STEPHEN EDWARD MCCLELLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-96-564-2) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 7, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Edward McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McClelland v. Angelone , No. CA-96-564-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HAL H. WILLIAMS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-1066

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 16-3988, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Joseph L. Falvey Jr.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

MEGHAN GENTILE, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III. 

 RETA EMMA BEZAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD,

ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DEREK 

Case: 20-1066 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2020
SCADDEN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

November 5, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1066 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2020
#### Lyon & Company, Appellees, v. Thomas Callopy, and Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Garnishee, Appellants.

Exemptions: bights of nonkesidents. A resident of another state, hy the laws of which his earnings are exempt, can not, when wages due him from a citizen of this state are garnished, plead the laws of the state of his residence to defeat the garnishment; such laws haying no force in this state, and the benefits of oúr exemption laws being restricted by the language of the statute to residents of this state.

*Appeal from Woodbury District Court.*— Hon. Scott M. .Ladd, Judge.

Thursday, February 2, 1893.

Action at law, aided by attachment. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company was garnished as a supposed debtor of Callopy, the defendant in the action. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs against the defendant. The garnishee answered that it was indebted to Callopy in a certain amount, and judgment was rendered against the garnishee for the amount admitted to be due. The defendant and garnishee *appeal.*—

Affirmed.

*568*O. J. Taylor*and *W. H. Farnsworth,*for appellants.

■ *Geo. T. Webster,*for appellees.

Rothrock, J.

— The facts npon which the appellants rely for a reversal of the judgment are as follows: The defendant, Callopy, is the head of a family, and resides in the state of Wisconsin, and was employed by the garnishee railway company, and labored for it in that state; and the garnishee, at the time it was garnished, was indebted to Callopy in the sum of one hundred and six dollar's. It is claimed that, under the laws of Wisconsin, the wages due him are exempt from the payment of his debts, and that he is entitled to claim that exemption in this state. Every question in this case was determined against the appellants in the ease of *Mooney v. U. P. Railway Co.,*60 Iowa, 346, and in *Broadstreet v. Clark,*65 Iowa, 670. It is said in the last-named case that “we regard it as the settled rule in this state that the exemption laws of another state or territory can not be pleaded or relied on as 'a defense by either the garnishee or judgment debtor.”

If we understand counsel for the appellants, they practically concede that the case of *Mooney v. U. P. Railway Co., supra,*stands squarely in the way of a reversal of this case; but they seem to think that the attention of the court was not called in that case to the proposition that the debt was exempt by the laws of Nebraska. This is a mistake, and the opinion7 in the case so shows. It is useless to cite cases which hold that by some sort of comity the exemptions allowed to residents of this state should be extended to residents of sister states. Exemption laws are purely statutory, and our Code (section 3072) expressly provides that “if the debtor is a resident of this state, and is the head of a family,” he may hold certain property and debts as exempt. This provision as plainly requires *569that there must be residence in this state as that the debtor mnst be the head of a family.

There is no other question in this case which, demands consideration, and the judgment of the district COUrt ÍS AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925663
<NAME> MIRADOR EQUITY PARTNERS, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,197
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,443)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)

        

</TABLE>
IB

House Calendar No. 47

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 453

[Report No. 106–113]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 20, 1999

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

APRIL 27, 1999

Committed to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 709 West 9th

Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders

Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HURFF A. SAUNDERS FED4 ERAL BUILDING.

5 The Federal building located at 709 West 9th Street

6 in Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.
2

•S 453 RH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

Passed the Senate March 23, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.

House Calendar No. 47

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 453

[Report No. 106–113]

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 709

‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.West 9th Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the

APRIL 27, 1999

Committed to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In our capacities as President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Stressgen Biotechnologies Corporation (the "Company")
we hereby certify based on our respective knowledge that: (a) the enclosed Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Annual Report.

|/s/ DANIEL L. KORPOLINSKIDaniel L. Korpolinski
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ DONALD D. TARTREDonald D. Tartre
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer      |  | 

---

QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 29, 2016

NO. 03-16-00364-CV

J. E. and D. C. a/k/a D. W., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order of termination signed by the district court on May 12, 2016. 

Appellants have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the 

Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and 

dismisses the appeal. Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.