alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed: May 29, 1996 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7422 (CA-95-1597-DKC) Darrell L. Ricks, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Donald Waltemeyer, et al, Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed May 21, 1996, as follows:On page 2, line 8 of opinion -- the phrase "that has conviction" is corrected to read "that his conviction." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Bert M. Montague Clerk2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7422 DARRELL L. RICKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD WALTEMEYER; WILLIAM COLE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-1597-DKC) Submitted: January 16, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles Verderaime, VERDERAIME & DUBOIS, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order but on modified grounds. Appellant's motion fails because his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) claim calls into question the validity of his confinement, Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973), and he has not established that his conviction has been rendered invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SETION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of EGPI Firecreek, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregg Fryett, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.





Date:  August 23, 2005





/s/ Gregg Fryett

Gregg Fryett

Chief Executive Officer
Motion Granted; Order filed December 10, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00229-CR

____________

SHANNON BERNARD JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-CR-3031

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a motion requesting

to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion is 

granted.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 56th District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local 

procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before

December 30, 2019; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on 

which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se 

brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
Control Option Annual Emission Rate (lb/MMBTu)Percent

Reduction (%) Annual Emissions (tons)Emission

Reduction (tons) Baseline 0.461 NA 2723 NA DSI 0.231 50.0% 1362 1361 LSD 0.065 85.9% 384 2339 LSFO 0.060 87.0% 354 2369

Notes: (1) Baseline emissions are from CAMD, 2008-2010.

Corette SO2 Emissions and Costs Summary
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40764
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. OSC AR C AS TE LLANO- M ART I NEZ D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. C

- 08- 70
B e fore JO N E S , C h i ef Ju d ge , an dH IG G IN B O T H A M an dH AY N E S , C i r c u it Ju dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * T h e gran d j u ry ret u rned a on e coun ti n di ct m en tagainstO scar C astell an oM a rti n ez , ch a rg i n g §§ 13 2 6 (a) a n d13 2 6 (b), w i th a m a xim u m pe n a l ty of t w en ty years’i m pri sonm en t . U pon a pl ea of g u i l t y t o the si n gl e cou n t , the d i st ri ctcourt se nt enc ed hi m t o t hi r t y- six m ont hs i n pri so n. C onc l udi ng t hat t he pr oc ee di ngs w e r e i nf

e c t e d b y t he th e n -ev o lvin gp rin cip les of App r e ndi , w e VA CA TE t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40764

2 j udgm ent of c onvi c t i on and se nt enc e and R E M A N D t o al l ow pro c ee di ng s to com m en ce af

resh, i n cl u di n g rearrai gn m en t , accept an ce of an y t en dered p l ea of gui l t y i n w hi c h C as t el l ano- M a r t i ne z a d m it s t othec o ndu c ts upport i ng t he c harge u n der §§ 1326 ( a) a n d 1 3 2 6(b) , w h i ch u n der A pp re n d i i n cl u des t h e el em en t s of bo t h, o r t o t r i al upo n a pl e a o f no t guil t y e nt e r e d b y Cas t e l l ano - M ar t i ne z o rt he c our t . N ot hi ng her ei n f or ec l os es t he usualpr oc es se s of pl ea bar gai ni ng.
H AY N ES , C i rcui tJ udg e , c o nc ur r i ng. I c o nc uri n r e m and i ng t hi s c as e t o t he d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o n s id e rt h is c a s e a n e w in lig h t o f d e v e lo p m e n ts in th e la w . S ee, e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . Roj as - Luna, 5 2 2 F .3 d5 0 2 , 5 0 4 -0 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).
Date: September 17, 2014

From: Ronald Jordan
To: Steam Electric ELG Record Subject: September 10, 2014 Meeting with the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) Regarding

Proposed Steam Electric ELGs

At the request of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), on September 10, 2014, EPA met with representatives from UWAG to discuss certain topics raised in comments on the proposed effluent guidelines (ELGs) for the steam electric power generating point source category. Attending the meeting were the following:
Kris ty Bull ei t

– Hunton & Williams (representing UWAG) Elizabeth Aldridge

– Hunton & Williams (representing UWAG)
Donna Hill

– Southern Company (representing UWAG)
Jan Matuszko

– EPA
Ron Jordan

– EPA Jezebele Alicea

– EPA Phillip Flanders

– EPA Jessica Hall

– EPA

UWAG discussed concerns related to the following topics, largely reiterating comments submitted during the public comment period for the proposed rule:

 Bottom ash : Restated UWAG’s concern that EPA’s pollutant characterization was based on
old data. In contrast, the data submitted in September 2013 as part of UWAG’s comment submission were collected more recently and were analyzed with more sensitive laboratory methods. UWAG also reiterated previous comments that EPA’s pollutant characterization
for ash transport water (both bottom ash and fly ash) erroneously includes sulfides and that UWAG believes the data with their comment submission supports that position. UWAG also noted that EPA previously questioned the validity of using “settled sluice water” a s being representative of actual ash pond effluent and stated that UWAG had collected data for additional ash ponds to compare settled sluice to the pond effluent. UWAG expressed concern that EPA’s pollutant characterization of ash transport water may suff er from inadequate data and offered to submit additional data for ash transport water. In response, EPA stated that the Agency had sufficient data and that no further data were needed for EPA’s evaluation of ash transport water.

 FGD wastewater : UWAG reiter ated comments about the BAT technology basis for FGD wastewater and expressed concern about plants having to meet effluent limits for selenium.

 Compliance deadlines : UWAG expressed support for EPA’s proposed approach for implementation of the ELGs, noting that plants need sufficient time to coordinate upgrades necessary to comply with the ELGs, CCR rule, and air rules.

 Exemptions for retirements : UWAG noted that the CWA 316(b) rule includes an exemption for facilities that are closing and suggested that the ELGs should include a similar provision.

 Nonchemical metal cleaning wastes : UWAG reiterated concerns that the proposed requirements for nonchemical metal cleaning wastes would be difficult to implement and that EPA underestimated the costs to comply with the proposed requirements.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4194 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying 

law school students participating in legal clinics or 

externships from the application of the conflict of interest 

rules under section 205 of such title. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4194 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Law Student Clinic 

3 Participation Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LAW STUDENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXEMP5 TION. 

6 Section 205 of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(j) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a law 

9 student or legal clinic staff member participating in the 

10 legal clinic or externship of an accredited law school, with 

11 respect to a matter within the scope of the clinic or 

12 externship, unless— 

13 ‘‘(1) the student or staff has participated per14 sonally and substantially in the matter as a Govern15 ment employee or special Government employee 

16 through decision, approval, disapproval, rec17 ommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, 

18 or otherwise; or 

19 ‘‘(2) the matter is pending in the department or 

20 agency of the Government in which the student is 

21 serving.’’. 
3 

•HR 4194 EH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

3 take effect upon the expiration of the 60-day period begin4 ning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4194 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt 

of such title. of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 legal clinics or externships from the application qualifying law school students participating in
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Notice is hereby given that Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3650 Chicago, IL 60603, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107). Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., proposes providing subordinated debt financing to Microdynamics Corporation, Inc. of 1400 Shore Rd., Naperville, IL 60563-8765. The financing by Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P. will discharge obligations held by Midwest Mezzanine IV, LLC and Midwest Mezzanine IV Parallel Fund, LLC. This financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730 of the Regulations because Midwest Mezzanine Fund V SBIC, L.P., Midwest Mezzanine IV, LLC and Midwest Mezzanine IV Parallel Fund, LLC are Associates and these Associates hold over five percent of the equity in Microdynamics Corporation, Inc., therefore this transaction requires prior SBA exemption.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2015-09101 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
9185

#### SOUTHERN IRON & EQUIPMENT CO. v. ORANGEBURG RY.

(86 S. E. 26.)

Appeal asp Error. Amendment to Pleadings. Refusal to Strike Out Answer.

1. Pleading — Amendment—Discretion.—In an action on a draft given by defendant for the purchase price of a box car, it was within the discretion of the Court to allow defendant to amend its answer, which set up breach of warranty, so as also to set up fraud in the sale.

2. Appeal and Error — Refusal to Strike Answer. — The refusal of a motion to strike out an answer as frivolous is not appealable.

Before Bowman, J., Orangeburg,

June, 1914.

Affirmed.

Action by Southern Iron & Equipment Company against Orangeburg Railway. From order, plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Messrs. Barron, McKay, Frierson & Moffatt,*for appellant,

submit: *Answer was frivolous:*27 S. C. 164; Bliss, Code Pleadings (2d ed.), secs. 334 and 421; 4 Words and Phrases, 2980; 54 S. C. 400; Code Civil Proc. (1902), sec. 268; Pom. Code Rem. (4th ed'.), sec. 528; 37 S. C. 606; 67 Fed. 49; *lb.*593; 2 Abbotts, Trial Brief (2d ed.) 965. *Defendant waived its rights by accepting the car and executing draft:*78 S. C. 205; 87 S. C. 428; 34 S. C. 516; 92 S. C. 569; 74 S. C. 575; 80 S. C. 29. *Amendment improper:*80 S. C. 217.

*Messrs. Rays or & Summers*and *Moss & Lide,*for respondent,

cite: *As to frivolous answer:*Code Civ. Proc. *151306; 85 S. C. 338; 54 S. C. 400; 86 S. C. 170; 80 S. C. 297; 2 S. C. 422. *Application to amend answer:*30 S. C. 564; 74 S. C. 236; 79 S. C. 270 ; 82 S. C. 1; 81 S. C. 574; 10 S. C. 98; 70 S. C. 89; 9 S. C. 334. *Appeal premature: 77*S. C. 441; 74 S. C. 13; 92 S'. C, 361.

August 27, 1915.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This is an action on a draft given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant, by its answer, admitted the execution of the draft, but alleged that the draft was given for the purchase price of a box car. That the car was bought under an express warranty that it was in first-class condition and was sound and strong in every particular; that said car failed in every particular and was worthless; that the defendant did not discover the condition of the car until after the execution of the draft. The defendant then moved to amend by setting up fraud in the sale.

The plaintiff resisted the motion to amend and moved to strike out the answer as frivolous. Judge Bowman, before whom the motions were made, allowed the amendment and refused to strike out the answer.

There are four exceptions, but they raise two questions.

1. Was it error to allow the amendment to the answer?

2. Was it error to refuse to strike out the answer?

Was it error to allow the amendment?

1 It does not appear that there was error in allowing the amendment. The allowance of the amendment is within the discretion of his Honor and no abuse of discretion appears. *Marion County Lumber Co.*v. *Hodges,*100 S. C. 477, 85 S. E. 49.

Was it error to refuse to strike out the answer?

2

This order is not appealable. *Bank*v. Witcover, 77 S. C. 443, 58 S. E. 149; *Harbert*v. *Railway,*74 S. C. 12, 53 S. E. 1001.

Order affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4112 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the requirements 

for windows, doors, and skylights to be eligible for the credit for nonbusiness energy property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2009 

Mr. YARMUTH (for himself, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. TANNER, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, and Mr. MOORE of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the requirements for windows, doors, and skylights to 

be eligible for the credit for nonbusiness energy property. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS, 

4 DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO 

5 THE CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY 

6 PROPERTY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 25C(c) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strikVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:01 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4112.IH H4112

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4112 IH

1 ing ‘‘is equal to’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘meets 

2 the criteria for such components established by the 2010 

3 Energy Star Program Requirements for Residential Win4 dows, Doors, and Skylights, Version 5.0 (or any subse5 quent version of such requirements which is in effect after 

6 January 4, 2010).’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

9 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
ex10-33.htm


Exhibit 10.33


 



Registered Trademark License Contract


 


Party A (The Licensor): Guoyun Yao




Party B (The Licensee): Taiyuan Hongxing Carbon Black Co., Ltd.


 


Legal Representative: Guoyun Yao




Both Parties A and B have both been fully consulted, and will fulfill the following agreements in an amicable and mutually beneficial manner.








	
Article 1.  

	
The registered trademark number: 4375135 (copy of registered trademark license attached)













	
Article 2.  

	
Scope of Authority: Within the allotted timeframe, The Licensee may use the registered trademark in association with the manufacturing or sales of any product, as well, The Licensee reserves the right to independently choose which specific products the registered trademark is applied to. The Licensees use of the registered trademark will not be subjected to regional administrative restrictions.


















	
Article 3.  

	
Term limit of Use: From Feb. 14th 2008 until The Licensee dissolves (or there is a mutual termination of the License Contract)













	
Article 4.  

	
Exclusivity: The Licensor irrevocably grants The Licensee exclusive rights to use of the registered trademark: Without written permission from The Licensee, The Licensor shall not grant the right to use the registered trademark to any third party, and furthermore, The Licensor may not in any occasion use the registered trademark.


















	
Article 5.  

	
Usage Fee: During the period of use, The Licensor gratuitously grants The Licensee the use of the registered trademark













	
Article 6.  

	
Consent: The Licensor in accordance with The Licensee’s requirements to legally protect the exclusive rights to license the registered trademark: The Licensor may not transfer the usage rights to registered trademark to any third party; if the Licensee requests, the Licensor will immediately free of charge transfer the registered trademark rights to the Licensee and actively handle the transfer procedures.













	
Article 7.  

	
Liability for breach of contract: After the agreement comes into effect, any party that breaches the agreement must make up for the losses thus caused to the other party.













	
Article 8.  

	
Dispute resolution: Any dispute occurred under this agreement, should first be resolved through amicable negotiations. In the event the negotiations are unsuccessful, either party shall be entitled to bring the dispute before the Wuhan Trade Arbitration Council for arbitration. The arbitral result is final and binding to both parties.













	
Article 9.  

	
This original contract and a duplicate will be given to both Party A (The Licensor) and Party B (The Licensee). It will become effective from the date of signing until the termination date specified in Article 3.












(The rest of this page is blank)


 




 





 











 











The Signature Page:







Party A: Yao Guoyun







Signature: ________












Party B: Taiyuan Hongxing Carbon Black Co., Ltd.







(Seal)












Legal Representative: __________







Date Signed: Year:_______ Month: _____ Day:____