alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walsh vs. Dart.

Where, within a year after the reversal of a judgment and an order for a new trial were entered in this court, *thermitUPur*was transmitted to the court below and a commission there issued to take testimony in the cause, and return made thereto: *Held,*that this was sufficient to take the case out of the operation of ch. 181, Laws of 1859,

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Marquette*County.

This court having on the 19th of November, 1861, reversed a judgment for the plaintiff in this cause, and awarded a *venire de novo,*the record was transmitted to the circuit court in De-comber following. This appeal was taken by the plaintiff from an order dismissing the cause on the ground that it “ was not noticed for trial, nor were there any proceedings had” in the cause within one year from said 19th of November, “ except that a commission was issued by the plaintiff to take the deposition of witnesses within such year.” The return to said commission is dated September 17th, 1862, but the printed ease does not show when it was filed in the circuit court.

*Jno. 0. Truesdell,*for appellant.

*Wheeler & Kimball,*for respondent.

*434
      *By the Gourt,*

Downer, J.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing the action, as it is claimed, pursuant to the provisions of chap. 131, Laws of 1859, which provides, in substance, that proceedings shall be had in the court below and the record transmitted to that court within a year from the time a new trial or other proceedings shall be ordered by the supreme court. The circuit court, because no proceedings had been had within the year except issuing a commission to take depositions, dismissed the action. It appears that the commission was issued and returned, with important evidence on the part of the plaintiff below, within the year. We think that all that is necessary to save the action from the operation of the statute is, that the *remittitur*should be filed or transmited to the circuit court, and some step or steps taken preparing the action for trial within the year. The taking of depositions on commission issued was such a step or steps.

The order of the circuit court is reversed, with costs.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05 

Robert D. Fletcher 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

MAR 2 2 2011 

Sacramento, CA 958 12 

Dear MFtcher: 

/ 

On December 30,2010, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions 

to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials 

submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. 

In addition, the submittal included the following rules which implement the 

SCAQMD's Title V program. These rules should have been submitted, with the proper 

documentation, as a Title V program revision, rather than a SIP revision. ARB should 

submit a written request to withdraw the SIP submittal of Rules 3000-3006, and resubmit 

the rules as a Title V program revision. 

APCDIAQMD 

South Coast 

South Coast 

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will 

review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1 lO(k). 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. 

Allen at (415) 947-4.120. 

Sincexel y, 

Rule # 

1714 

.- 

3008 

Director, ~irbivision 

Rule Title 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration for Greenhouse Gases 

Potential to Emit Limitations 
cc: Dr. Barry Wallerstein 

Executive Officer 

South Coast AQMD 

Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, Chief 

Program Evaluation Branch 

Stationary Source. Division
Exhibit 99.13

News
Release
March 1, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE SETS NEW DATE FOR ANNUAL SHAREHOLDER MEETING

Carpinteria, CAMarch 1, 2000The Board of Directors of Turbodyne Technologies
Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD) has reset the Annual Shareholder Meeting for Friday, May 12, 2000 at 1:30 PM at the Miramar Hotel, 1555 S. Jameson Lane, Santa Barbara-Montecito, CA. The Board of Directors
and management invite Turbodyne's shareholders to attend the meeting. Turbodyne regrets the inconvenience of the postponement which is intended to allow the shareholders adequate time to review
Turbodyne's 1999 annual report. The annual report will be mailed together with the proxy statement on or about April 7, 2000 to shareholders of record as of March 31, 2000.

Shareholders
considering attending the meeting are encouraged to pre-register by e-mail via Turbodyne's website. Information about the Miramar Hotel can be found at
http://www.sbmiramar.com. Shareholders requiring accommodations are invited to contact the Miramar Hotel, telephone: 805-969-2203, and to mention that they are attending Turbodyne's Annual Shareholder
Meeting.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and
manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business
location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Corporate
Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Investor Relations, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
# C_2014356EN.01000501.xml

| 9.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 October 2014

2014/C 356/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2645 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4442 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78700 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1322 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2132 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1945 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,480 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,92 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1919 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4108 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8992 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4416 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4131 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8080 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6210 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6173 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 360,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1770 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7624 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6440 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 490,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1388 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,673 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 50,5925 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,238 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0246 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0353 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,6300 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2645

JPY

Japanese yen

136,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4442

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78700

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1322

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2132

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1945

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,480

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,92

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1919

RON

Romanian leu

4,4108

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8992

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4416

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4131

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8080

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6210

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6173

KRW

South Korean won

1 360,58

ZAR

South African rand

14,1770

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7624

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6440

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 490,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1388

PHP

Philippine peso

56,673

RUB

Russian rouble

50,5925

THB

Thai baht

41,238

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0246

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0353

INR

Indian rupee

77,6300

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015190EN.01000101.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 190/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 178, 1.6.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 171, 26.5.2015

OJ C 155, 11.5.2015

OJ C 146, 4.5.2015

OJ C 138, 27.4.2015

OJ C 127, 20.4.2015

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Bruce D. McMaster, certify that:

 

1.        Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DDi Corp.;

 

2.        Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.        Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.        Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)      designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(c)      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.        Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)      allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)      anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Dated: May  14, 2004 | /s/ BRUCE D. MCMASTER                          |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                 | **Bruce D. McMaster  Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7884

CLINTON HILL, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00193-JBF-JEB)

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clinton Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2014171EN.01001001.xml

| 6.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/10

---

Call for applications 2014

Third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 171/03

A call for applications ‘Health — 2014’ is launched today within the framework of the third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) (1)

1

This call for applications consists of the following parts:

| — | a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of project grants, |
| --- | --- |

—

a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of project grants,

| — | a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to functioning of non- governmental bodies (operating grants). |
| --- | --- |

—

a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to functioning of non- governmental bodies (operating grants).

Deadlines for online submissions of the proposals are as follows, for project grants 25 September 2014, for the Framework Partnership Agreement for operating grants 25 September 2014 and 25 September 2014 for the application of the Specific Grant Agreement.

All the information, including the Commission Decision of 26 May 2014 on the adoption of the work programme for 2014 for implementation of the third Programme of the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020), and on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme, are available on the website of the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency Consumers (Chafea) at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the establishment of a third Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1350/2007/EC (OJ L 86, 21.3.2014, p. 1).

1

---
Fw: Revisions to the Administrator 's conclusions on NOx/SOx per our 

discussion at 4 PM

Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 09:14 AM

Jan King

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group

phone: (919) 541-5665

fax: (919) 541-2664

Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 09:11 AM -----

From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Laity, James A." <James_A._Laity@omb.eop.gov>, "Mancini, Dominic J." 

<Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet 

McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lea Anderson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich 

Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan 

King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman <wegman.lydia@epa.gov>

Date: 07/11/2011 06:01 PM

Subject: Revisions to the Administrator's conclusions on NOx/SOx per our discussion at 4 PM 

Jim and Dom, 

Attached are revisions to the Administrator's proposed conclusions section which we discussed at our 4 

PM meeting today. The changes appear on pages 83-88. Please let us know if these work for you and if 

you have comments on any of the other revisions we have made to respond to your comments. Thanks a 

lot. 

Lydia
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1868

HERBERT CLARK, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Acting Secretary of the Army,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00565-FL)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Clark, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Clark, III, appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting 

summary judgment to Defendant, and upholding the final decision 

of the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (“Board”), 

which denied Clark’s request to make corrections to his military 

records. Under the Administrative Procedures Act this court’s 

review of a Board’s decision is “quite limited” and we may only 

set aside the Board’s decision if it is arbitrary, capricious, 

or not based on substantial evidence. Randall v. United States, 

95 F.3d 339, 348 (4th Cir. 1996); see Chappell v. Wallace, 462 

U.S. 296, 303 (1983). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Clark v. Murphy, No. 5:14-cv-00565-FL

(E.D.N.C. June 2, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00347-CV

ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Gregorio G. PAREDES Jr.,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9,016

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the parties have resolved this matter. 

We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order that each party bear its own costs 

of appeal as agreed. See id. R. 42.1(d) (absent agreement of parties, costs are taxed against 

appellant).

PER CURIAM
# C_2016134EN.01000201.xml

| 15.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 134/02)

On 3 March 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7573. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7573. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- Directorate Identifier: 2011

- NE

- 21

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and th en out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspect Engines: IO

- 720

- A1B, SNs L

- 1457

- 54A and L

- 1458

- 54A both engines are currentl y on aircraft N51779 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 2 $ 170.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 170 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Co sts table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### Engine inspection and repair to be accomplished by original overhaul facility at no cost to owner. **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial numbe r of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: 

### There are only 2 engines to be inspected by a representative of the facility that overhauled the engines. This will be done at no cost to the owner. **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
99-1242.

#### Ameritech Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 98-308-TP-CSS. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Upon consideration of the joint motion for a stay of all further proceedings in this court pending final disposition of case No. C2-99-552 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and request for expedited ruling,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for stay be, and hereby is, granted.