alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7517

TRYGVE LEE BLAIR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP ROBINSON, Superintendent of Public

Safety and Corrections; MICHAEL FLANIGAN,

Commissioner of the Division of Corrections;

WILLIAM JEDNORSKI, Warden of Baltimore City

Detention Center; FERLENE BAILEY, Administrator; DOCTOR BRYD, PHP Medical Services; PHP

HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-97-1639-WMN)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trygve Lee Blair, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Blair v. Robinson, No. CA-97-1639-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 25 &

Oct. 10, 1997). 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 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Click Commerce, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael W. Nelson,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.
| Date: May 16, 2005 | /s/ MICHAEL W. NELSON                    |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| * *                | Michael W. Nelson                        |
| * *                | *Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Click Commerce, Inc. and will beretained by Click Commerce, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-1497

KARL V. DAVID,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-94-39-3)

Submitted: May 19, 1998

Decided: July 21, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,

United States Attorney, G. Wingate Grant, Assistant United States

Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Karl V. David appeals the district court's order denying his motion

for attorney's fees under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(d)(2)(B) (West Supp.

1998). A jury convicted David in 1994 of making a false statement

to a department or agency of the United States in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1001 (1994). We vacated David's conviction and remanded

for a new trial in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United

States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (holding that element of materiality in § 1001 must be submitted to jury), which was decided while

David's direct criminal appeal was pending. See United States v.

David, 83 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1996). On remand, the superseding

indictment was reinstated, charging David with the§ 1001 violation

and violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(a)(1)(A) (1994). A jury

acquitted David on all charges.

David then filed his § 924(d)(2)(B) motion, contending that he was

entitled to attorney's fees because his prosecution was "without foundation." The district court denied David's motion, holding that (1) the

§ 1001 violation did not fall within the purview of § 924(d)(2)(B);

and (2) the remaining charges were not "without foundation" because

there was a valid indictment and because a finding of reasonable

doubt cannot be equated with a finding that a case was without foundation.

We have carefully examined the record, the briefs, and the opinion

of the district court. We agree with the district court that David failed

to satisfy the requirements of § 924(d)(2)(B) and, therefore, affirm the

denial of attorney's fees on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. David, No. CR-94-39-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 1997). 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

 2
KOREY LEE RICHARDSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3197

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell L. Healey, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

and Justin Karpf, Certified Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Mastro, Donna

Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 7:04 AM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa; Johansen, Amy

Subject: FW: SSM SIP Call Final Rule

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf; SSM SIP final rule_Fact 

Sheet.pdf

VA

Donna L. Mastro - EPA Region III – ORC - Air Branch Chief - (215) 814-2777 

From: Esher, Diana  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 2:46 PM

To: Dowd, Michael (DEQ); thomas.ballou@deq.virginia.gov

Cc: Arnold, David; Mastro, Donna; Fernandez, Cristina; Johansen, Amy

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Rule

I’m writing to inform you that earlier today, the Administrator signed a final action to ensure states have in 

place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction (SSM). 

EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their State Implementation Plans (SIPs), to 

protect public health and ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s current SSM Policy. In 

response to this action, your state will need to correct specific SSM provisions in your state plan as indicated in 

the final action. 

The Clean Air Act allows a maximum of 18 months from the issuance of the final action to submit a SIP 

revision. Therefore your revised SIP submission is due to EPA by November 22, 2016. 

For your information, here is the link to the pre-publication version of the final action signed today. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html

SSM provisions for Virginia are addressed in final action’s prepublication version, under section IX, at 

subsection D. 3 (p. 456). 

I have also attached a copy of a notification letter signed by Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe and a 

copy of the SSM Fact Sheet for your information. 

We will continue to work closely with you to ensure this SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. Please 

let me know if your have any questions. 

Diana Esher 

Director, Air Protection Division 

EPA Region 3 

215-814-2706 

esher.diana@epa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,831                   5,108
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   4,066
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,785                       0  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (951)                   (629)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,076                   4,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,204                  22,469
<PP&E>                                           4,557                   4,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,331)                 (2,428)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,203                  24,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,435                   5,179
<BONDS>                                              0                       0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0  
<COMMON>                                        38,573                  38,064
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,811)                (18,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,762                  19,770
<SALES>                                         23,157                  23,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,507                  24,763
<CGS>                                           13,789                  12,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,789                  13,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,413                  10,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4                     383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,461)                     893
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20                      39
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,481)                     854
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0  
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,481)                     854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)                    0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)                    0.12
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-05-0447-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	JUNE 20, 2006

	______________________________

	CHRISTOPHER LEE RAMOS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 14,102-B; HONORABLE JOHN BOARD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Christopher Lee Ramos was granted deferred adjudication and ordered to complete ten years of community supervision.  In August 2004, the State filed a motion to revoke and proceed with adjudication of the original offense.  The trial court allowed appellant to continue on community supervision following amendment of its terms and conditions.  In October 2005, the State filed a another motion to revoke appellant's community supervision, and appellant pled not true to the violations alleged.  Following a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the original offense of aggravated assault, and sentenced him to 15 confinement.  In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel's motion and affirm. 

     In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment.  Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.  In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so.  Appellant subsequently filed a response.  The State did not favor us with a brief. 

     By his Anders brief, counsel raises one ground that could arguably support an appeal.  We have reviewed this ground in addition to the grounds raised in appellant’s response.  We have also made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any other arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).  We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

							Don H. Reavis

						    	     Justice

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Click Commerce, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/MICHAEL W. FERRO, JR.Michael W. Ferro, Jr. Chief
Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:
May 14, 2003

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Click Commerce, Inc. and will be retained by Click Commerce, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
ex10-10.htm



Exhibit 10.10


 



Sales contract of Industrial and Mineral Products


 


                      Contract No._____


Supplier: Taiyuan Hongxing Carbon Black Co., Ltd


 


Buyer:    Anhui Julong Group Jilong Mineral Co., Ltd


 


Place of signing contract: Qingxu:Taiyuan


 


Date of signing contract:February 25, 2007







1. Product name, trade mark, model, quantity, amount of money, delivery time and quantity


 



	
Product Name

	
Model

	
Unit

	
Quantity Required/Monthly

	
Price


(RMB per ton)

	
Amount(RMB)

	
Remarks


	
Carbon Black

	
N220

	
Ton

	
50

	
6100

	  	
1. The price in this agreement is current market price 

2. The quantity is decided by the number actually occurred.




	
Carbon Black

	
N330

	
Ton

	
50

	
5700

	  	
 


	
Carbon Black

	
N660

	
Ton

	
50

	
5700

	  	  
	
Total

	  





 


2. Quality requirements, technical standards, the conditions and duration of which supplier is responsible for: National standard or by buyer’s standard


 


3. The place of delivery and method: buyer’s warehouse, Specific quantity and delivery time are subject to telephone or fax-based communication


 


4. Means of transport, expense for transport and related items: The buyer bear the burden


 


5. Reasonable wear and tear and method of calculation    None


 


6. Packaging standards, supply and recycle of packaging materials   None


 


7. Acceptance criteria, methods, and period to hold discussion on goods delivered: Within 7 days after the delivery


 


8. Random spare, number and supply method of accessories    None


 


9. Payment method and period: Within 30 days after the delivery and the invoice being recognized.


 


10. If guaranty is needed, the guaranty agreement is also needed as appendix    None


 


11. Liability for breach of contract: It shall be settled according to the contract law of PRC


 


12. The mechanism of dispute settlement:  It shall be settled through negotiation.


 


13. Other agreed matters:


 


  a. Quality Assurance Documents


 


  b. The price is subject to the market condition, and the quantity is determined by the actual number occurred. It shall inform the buyer at 7 day’s advance if there is a change in above items.


 








	
Supplier:


Company Name (Seal):


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent :


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:

	
Buyer:


Company Name:


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent:


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:







 Valid period: From March 1, 2008 to December 31,2008
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.43
 Photon Dynamics, Inc.
2005 Equity Incentive Plan
 Stock Option Agreement
 (Incentive Stock Option Or Nonstatutory Stock Option)
   1. Vesting.
 2. Number Of Shares And Exercise Price.
 3. [Exercise Prior To Vesting (Early Exercise). provided, however,
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 1.




---



##### 



]
 4. Method Of Payment. permitted by your Grant Notice,
 (a) The Wall Street
Journal
 (b) The Wall Street Journal
 5. Whole Shares.
 6. Securities Law Compliance.
 7. Term.
 (a)
 2.




---



##### 



(b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
  8. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 3.




---



##### 



(c)
 9. Transferability.
 10. Option Not A Service Contract.
 11. Withholding Obligations.
 (a)
 (b)
 4.




---



##### 



(c)
 12. Notices.
 13. Governing Plan Document.
 5.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors:

Open Text Corporation. 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-109505, 333-121377, 333-146350 and 333-146351) on Form S-8 of Open Text Corporation of our reports dated August 20, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Open Text Corporation as of June 30, 2008 and 2007 and the consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2008 and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2008, which reports appear in the June 30, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Open Text Corporation. Our report refers to a change in the accounting for uncertainty in incometaxes. 

/s/ KPMG LLP, Licensed Public Accountants 

Toronto, Canada 

August 25, 2008
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peoples First, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Susan H. Reeves, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Susan H. Reeves
Susan H. Reeves
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Contact:  Carol DiRaimo,
          Vice President of Investor Relations
          (913) 967-4109

                Applebee's International Delays Filing Form 10-K
                   to Finalize Corrections in Lease Accounting

Overland  Park,  Kan.,  March  11,  2005  --  Applebee's   International,   Inc.
(Nasdaq:APPB)  today announced that it will file a Form 12b-25 for a fifteen-day
extension of the March 11, 2005 filing  deadline  for its Annual  Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended  December  26,  2004.  The company now expects to
file its Annual Report on Form 10-K on or before March 28, 2005.

The company had  previously  announced  that,  like many other  companies in the
restaurant, retail and other industries, the company is reviewing its accounting
treatment for leases and  depreciation of related  leasehold  improvements.  The
company has discussed its lease  accounting  practices with its audit  committee
and consulted with its independent  registered  public  accountants,  Deloitte &
Touche LLP, and has determined it will correct its accounting  practices in this
area.  The  company  has not yet made a final  determination  as to whether  the
corrections  will be made as a cumulative  adjustment  in the fourth  quarter of
2004 or as a restatement of historical financial statements.

Applebee's International,  Inc., headquartered in Overland Park, Kan., develops,
franchises and operates  restaurants under the Applebee's  Neighborhood  Grill &
Bar brand,  the largest casual dining concept in the world.  There are currently
1,691  Applebee's   restaurants  operating  system-wide  in  49  states  and  12
international countries.  Additional information on Applebee's International can
be found at the company's website (www.applebees.com).

                                      # # #
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-80341) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Stock Plan of Pharmacopeia, 
Inc., the 1995 Director Option Plan of Pharmacopeia, Inc., and the 1995 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Pharmacopeia, Inc., in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-20883) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Stock Plan of Pharmacopeia,
Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-56883) pertaining to 
the Pharmacopeia, Inc. 1994 Incentive Stock Plan, the Molecular Simulations 
Incorporated 1988 Stock Option and Purchase Plan, the Molecular Simulations 
Incorporated 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the Polygen Corporation 1986 Incentive 
Stock Option Plan, the Polygen Corporation 1986 Incentive Stock Option Plan 
(California), the Polygen Corporation 1986 Supplemental Stock Option Plan and 
the Polygen Corporation 1986 Supplemental Stock Option Plan (California), of our
report dated January 28, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Pharmacopeia, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                   Ernst & Young LLP
Princeton, New Jersey
March 23, 1999