alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23(b)

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that in case any part of a registration statement, when such part became effective, contained an
untrue statement of a material fact, or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security
pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, among others, an accountant who has with his
consent been named as having certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared any report which is used in connection with the registration statement.

On
May 8, 2002, the Company dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur Andersen") as its independent auditors. After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur
Andersen's written consent to the incorporation by reference of Arthur Andersen's audit report with respect to the Company's consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000 into its previously filed registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-16703, 33-62544 and 333-60071) and on Form S-3 (File
Nos. 33-30246, 33-53434, 333-60073, 333-00301, 33-63819 and 33-81996). Such audit report is included in this Form 10-K.

Under
these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933 permits the Company to file this Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the above listed
registration statements, without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. However, as a result, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any
untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be
unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

July 2, 2013

**MEMORANDUM**

SUBJECT : Payson, Arizona 2011 Limited Maintenance Plan Update

FROM: Nancy Levin, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Air Rules Office (AIR

- 4)

TO: Docket EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2013

- 0657

I spoke with the John Englander of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) about the development of the 2011 Limited Maintenance Plan Update, submitted by ADEQ on January 23, 2012. Als o participating on the call were EPA Region 9, Air Division staff members Wienke Tax (Air Planning Office, AIR

- 2) and Nicole Law (Air Rules Office, AIR

- 4).

John Englander indicated that the industrial source data for the Payson area was from ADEQ ’ s internal review of emission reports from permitted sources . Mr. Englander also indicated that the LMP Update did not rely on additional local control measures to maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 10 and that ADEQ had not revised tho se measures which brought the

area into attainment

.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned, Joseph J. Talley Chief Financial Officer of American Crystal SugarCompany, (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:

 

1.      TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this23rd day of November, 2005.

 

 
| By:    | /s/  Joseph J. Talley           |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  Joseph J. Talley         |
|   | Title:  Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                                 |        |  |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 182 (Friday, December 5, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        House of Representatives

Chamber Action
  The House was not in session today. The House is scheduled to meet at 
11 a.m. on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, pursuant to section 2 of H. Con. 
Res. 440.
```
To: deborah.vercek@lanxess.com, 

Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US, Marcus Aguilar/DC/USEPA/US, 

Bcc:

Subject: EPA Grants extension of request to extend dates for submission of test data for selected 

Tests.

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US - Tuesday 12/18/2012 10:53 AM

Dear Ms. Vercek, After carefully reviewing our conversations pertaining to the difficulties 

Lanxess has encountered in scheduling laboratory space and scheduling the testing , 

we believe that your request is reasonable and we will grant the extension that Lanxess 

has requested. The dates for these extensions are listed below:

For both the Toxicity to Daphnia Magna and Algal Growth Inhibition an extension to 

March 31, 2013 is granted.

For the Combined Repeat Dose Toxicity with Reproduction/Developmental Tox 

Screening an extension to July 31, 2013 is granted.

As noted in your request on October 23, 2012 to the DCO The Reverse Mutation Assay 

(Ames test) and In vitro Chromosome

Aberration test will be submitted by December 21, 2012.

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-01-1999
<CASH>                                             667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,197
<PP&E>                                             860
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,910
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,057
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   119
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (13)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (13)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (13)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
1

Subject: FW: Air pollution and birth weight in TX paper in AWMA (2012)

Attachments: Tables 5_Adj. Health Service Regions.docx

From: Laura Geer [mailto:Laura.Geer@downstate.edu] 

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:48 PM 

To: Luben, Tom 

Subject: Re: Air pollution and birth weight in TX paper in AWMA (2012) 

Hi Tom, 

Please see attached the additional NO2 data you have requested. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best, 

Laura 

-----"Luben, Tom" <Luben.Tom@epa.gov> wrote: -----

To: "laura.geer@downstate.edu" <laura.geer@downstate.edu> 

From: "Luben, Tom" <Luben.Tom@epa.gov> 

Date: 04/19/2013 08:04AM 

Subject: Air pollution and birth weight in TX paper in AWMA (2012) 

Hi Dr. Geer, 

I am working on the current review of the NOx National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and am 

reviewing your paper, “Ambient air pollution and term birth weight in Texas from 1998 to 2004”. One of the 

key considerations we look for in our review of the literature are populations that could be potentially at-risk 

due to exposure. I noticed that in Table 5 of your paper you present stratified results based on race/ethnicity for 

some, but not all, pollutants. I was wondering if you had results of such analyses for NO2 and if you would be 

willing to share them with me? Even if there is no evidence of an association between NO2 and birthweight, 

nor evidence of effect measure modification by race/ethnicity, this information is valuable and will help to 

inform our evaluation of NO2 for this NAAQS review. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

Thank you, 

Tom 

Tom Luben, PhD 

National Center for Environmental Assessment 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

RTP, NC 27711 

(919) 541-5762 

 

 
Table 5. Change in birth weight per IQR increase in pollutant

for gestational period, by race (95% confidence interval).

Difference in birth weight (g) per IQR of pollutant

Pollutant Non-Hispanic black 

mother

Hispanic mother Non-Hispanic white 

mother

NO2 * 5.24 (-0.37 to 10.86) 2.22 (-1.79 to 6.23) -1.77 (-6.18 to 2.62)

CO * 9.52 (5.53 to 13.52) -0.3 (-2.46 to 1.86) 4.32 (1.72 to 6.92)

O3 -3.89 (-6.6 to -1.17) -1.87 (-3.95 to 0.21) -2.97 (-5.15 to -0.78)

SO2 * -1.81 (-7.54 to 3.93) -6.39 (-9.62 to -3.16) 0.34 (-4.22 to 4.9)

PM2.5 * 1.93 (-3.95 to 7.82) 3.35 (1.37 to 5.33) -3.44 (-7.01 to 0.12)

PM10 * 9.62 (6.28 to 12.96) 1.59 (0.35 to 2.83) -2.3 (-4.19 to -0.41)

*p<0.05 for comparison of results from infants with non-Hispanic black mothers

to infants of non-Hispanic white and Hispanic mothers.

Adjusted for Texas Health Service Regions 1-11 (excluding Region 2 due to lack of data).
----

(2004/C 65 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Obstacles to trade in the applicant countries

In July 2002, the Spanish Secretary of State for Trade processed some 20 complaints from exporters concerning trade obstacles caused by administrative and fiscal problems in the applicant countries. 48 % of the complaints related to Poland and 28 % to the Czech Republic.

The sectors most affected were agri-foods, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, textiles, plastics, wood and furniture, footwear, building materials, capital equipment and automobile parts.

What action is the Commission taking or going to take with a view to preventing such obstacles to trade from proliferating once enlargement has actually taken place?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission considers the smooth functioning of the internal market from the first day of accession of the new Member States as being of primary importance. In order to ensure that this will be the case, intensive monitoring of commitments made under the relevant chapters of the acquis is already being undertaken and will continue until the date of accession. In the event that major disruptions are deemed likely, the Commission reserves the right to invoke the ‘safeguard clause’ announced by the Commission on 9 October 2002 and now accepted by all parties. The safeguard clause in the accession treaty will allow the Commission for a period of three years following accession, if it is considered necessary, to take appropriate action to ensure the orderly implementation of Community law, particularly in areas such as the Internal Market (including food safety) and Justice and Home Affairs. Decisions can be taken already prior to accession.

Upon accession the administrative and informational architecture ensuring the free movement of goods in the current Member States will become operational automatically. No transition periods have been negotiated as regards the principles of mutual recognition and Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty. The obligations of new Member States to ensure the removal of all obstacles to the free movement of goods will therefore be the same as those currently in place amongst the fifteen existing Members. These obligations apply regardless of whether the goods concerned are covered by harmonised product legislation or not. In the event of non-respect of these obligations, the Commission will examine the possibility of infringement proceedings on the same basis as is currently the case in the Member States.

----
EGU MACT -- Comments on benefits discussion in preamble 

 12/14/2011 05:50 PM 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Hi Bob, 

Attached is the latest preamble with redline edits to the benefits 

discussion. These track with edits suggested in the RIA Executive 

summary I sent earlier today. 

 

I’ve asked for interagency comments by COB today, but I wanted to send 

these over. I plan to get any additional interagency comments on the 

preamble to you by noon tomorrow (but likely not tonight). 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitiesMATS2060_AP52Final20111212_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563

_Benefits edits.docx
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 1057 Filed June 5, 2019
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. TORRENZO MICHAEL GREEN , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Lars G. Anderson (guilty plea) and Mary E. Chicchelly (sentencing) , Judge s

.

Torrenzo Green appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with
intent to deliver. AFFIRMED.

Jeffrey L. Powell of Powell & McCullough, PLC , C oralville , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J. , Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J. *

* Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).2

MAHAN , Senior Judge

. Torrenzo Green pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (201 7 ). As part of Green’s plea deal, the State agreed to dismiss a related class “D” fel ony charge and recommend Green receive a suspended sentence. Following a hearing, the district court accepted his plea, entered judgment, and imposed sentence. Green now appeals, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead gui lty without “fully investigat[ing] the facts surrounding Green’s charges” and “fully ascertain[ing his] mental competence to execute an effective plea of guilty.” The record before us lacks any basis to evaluate Green’ s claim. Therefore, we affirm hi s co nviction and preserve his ineffective

- assistance claim for possible postconviction

- relief proceedings. Se e State v

. Harris , 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (“If the record is insufficient to allow for a review on direct appeal, we do not reach the issue on direct appeal and allow the defendant to raise the claim in a separate p ostconviction

- relief action.”).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1




C.E.O. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)








In connection with the Annual Report of American Consumers, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 (as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that he is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.







/s/ Michael A. RichardsonMichael A. RichardsonChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAmerican Consumers, Inc.Date:  August 27, 2009
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NOWAK CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.

,

Appellant

,

v.

OSCAR AVALOS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 10

- 00261

- CV

Appeal from the

327th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2008

- 1103)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the joint motion of Nowak Construction Co., Inc., Appellant,

and Oscar Avalos, Appellee. They request th at the Court : (1) wi thdraw the Court’s opinion and

j udgment dated February 15, 2012 ; (2) reverse the judgment of the trial court without reaching the

merits of the case ; and (3) remand the cause to the trial court to effectuate the settlement of the

parties, pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2).

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) permi ts an appellate court to dispose of an

appeal in accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the

clerk. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a). The appellate court maintains jurisdiction to determine

whether to withdraw any opi nion it has already issued. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1( c); compare

Polley v. Odom

, 963 S.W.2d 917, 918 (Tex.App.

- - Waco 1998, no pet.)(per curiam) (holding that

court’s duty constrained it to publish prior opinion); Lee v. Lee , 2009 WL 541048, *1

(Tex.App.

-- El P as o Mar. 4, 2009, no pet.)(memo. op.) (withdrawing opinion pursuant to settlement

agreement)

. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2, the Court of Appeals may2

“reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.” TEX.R.APP.P.

43.2(d).

The joint motion is GRANTED . This Court’s opinion issued February 15, 2012 is

withdrawn and our judgment of that date is vacated. See TEX. R. APP.P. 42.1 (a)(c)

. Without

reaching the merits of the appeal, we hereby REVERSE the judgmen t of the trial court and

REMAND the matter for further proceedings as necessary to effectuate the parties’ agreement.

As the motion does not indicate the parties have agreed otherwise, costs of appeal will be paid by

the Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1( d ).

April 11, 2012

CHRISTOPHER ANTCLIFF, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
|  | (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, our financial condition and result of operations. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                         |                                                                    |                                       |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                         | WORLDS.COM,                INC.(Registrant)                        |
|                                         |                                                                    |                                       |
| Date: March                4, 2008 | By:                                                      | /s/ Thomas                Kidrin |
|                                         | Thomas                KidrinChief                Executive Officer |
EXHIBIT 10.23


Narrative Summary of
American Consumers, Inc.


Executive Officer Base
Salaries for Fiscal 2009





The
following table sets forth the base salaries established for the fiscal year
ending in May 2009 for those executive officers of American Consumers, Inc. (the
“Company”) who qualify as “named executive officers” pursuant to Item 402(m)(2)
of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K.  The Board of
Directors of the Company, acting upon the recommendation of the Board’s
Compensation Committee, has elected to leave these base salaries unchanged from
the base salaries for these officers for the Company’s 2008 fiscal
year.








Name:
            
            Title:
            
            Annual Base
      Salary:Michael
      A. Richardson
            
            Chairman
      of the Board, Presidentand
      Chief Executive Officer
            
            $88,400
EXHIBIT 21.1
 K-Tron International, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    State or Jurisdiction of IncorporationK-Tron Investment Co.
    
    DelawareGundlach Equipment Corporation
    
    DelawareK-Tron America, Inc.
    
    DelawareK-Tron (Schweiz) AG
    
    SwitzerlandK-Tron Asia Pte Ltd
    
    SingaporeK-Tron China Limited
    
    Hong KongK-Tron Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyK-Tron France S.a.r.l.
    
    FranceK-Tron Great Britain Limited
    
    United KingdomK-Tron (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaWuxi K-Tron Colormax Machinery Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaPennsylvania Crusher Corporation
    
    DelawareJeffrey Rader Corporation
    
    DelawareJeffrey Rader Canada Company
    
    CanadaJeffrey Rader AB
    
    SwedenPremier Pneumatics, Inc.
    
    DelawareK-Tron Technologies, Inc.
    
    Delaware