alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of SED International Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jean Diamond, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.


/s/ JEAN DIAMOND
-------------------------------------
Jean Diamond
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: October 20, 2006
Exhibit 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos.  333-61824 and  333-23353) and the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-2 (Nos.  333-100808,  333-89848,  333-83188,  333-73870 and 333-39378) of
BestNet  Communications  Corp. of our report dated October 16, 2002, relating to
the  financial  statements  appearing  in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of
BestNet Communications Corp., Inc. for the year ended August 31, 2002.


SEMPLE & COOPER, LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
November 25, 2002
EX-10.48






Exhibit 10.48




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

RESTRICTED SHARE UNITS AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RESTRICTED SHARE UNITS AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 1”) is made as of
November 19th, 2007 between Cardinal Health, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the “Company”), and Dwight
Winstead (the “Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into that certain Restricted Share Units
Agreement dated as of May 17, 2004 (the “Agreement”) granting to the Executive 5,000 Restricted
Share Units representing an unfunded, unsecured promise of the Company to deliver Common Shares to
the Executive as set forth therein;



     WHEREAS, the Agreement generally provides that the Executive will defer payment of the Common
Shares subject to the Restricted Share Units until the one-year anniversary of the first date on
which the Executive ceases to be an employee of the Company, or on such earlier date as may be
approved by the Chairman of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to conform the deferred
settlement provisions to the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, by eliminating the discretion of the Chairman to permit an acceleration of the payment of
the Common Shares subject to the Restricted Share Units.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree to amend the Agreement by deleting
Paragraph 7 of the Agreement in its entirety and replacing said paragraph with the following:




“7. Payment. Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 of this
Agreement, on the one-year anniversary of the first date on which Grantee ceases
to be an employee of the Cardinal Group (unless such cessation does not constitute
a “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(i) of the
Code, and the regulations thereunder, in which case the settlement contemplated by
this paragraph shall occur on the one-year anniversary of the first date that does
so constitute a “separation from service”), Grantee shall be entitled to receive
from the Company (without any payment on behalf of Grantee other than as described
in Paragraph 11) the Common Shares represented by this Award.”



     Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first
written above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	          /s/ Carole Watkins
 

	 	 
	 	/s/ Dwight Winstead
 

	 	 
	Its:

	 	          CHRO
NO. 07-10-00134-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B JUNE 14, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARR IAGE OF DAVID MICHAEL LITTLE AND CHARLENE MCDOWELL LITTLE

FROM THE 85TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY; NO. 07-002205-CVD-85; HO NORABLE J. D. LANGLEY, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND Appellant Charlene McDowell Little appeal s from the final j udgment of the trial court. The clerk’s record was filed on Apri l 5, 2010. The reporter’s record was due on April 8, 2010. Neither the r eporter’s record nor an extension motion was filed. By letter of April 28, we directed the court reporter “to advise the C ourt of the status of the reporter’s record on or before Monday, May 10, 2010.” Despite this letter and efforts by appellant’s counsel, 1 we have received no response from the deputy reporter who took the record.

1 The record was not taken by the trial court’s official reporter. Appellant’s counsel has informed us he twice has atte mpted to contact, by telephone, the deputy reporter who took the record and has maile d her two requests to prepare the record. He advises us he has received no response.2 It is the duty of the trial court to ens ure that its reporter’s work is timely accomplished by setting work priorities. Tex. R. App. P. 13.3. Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 85 th District Court of Brazos County (the trial court) for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and thereafter conduct a hearing to determine:

(1) The reason for the lack of response fr om the reporter who took the record; and, (2) When the reporter’s record can r easonably be transcribed into written form and filed in a manner that does not furt her delay the prosecution of this appeal or have the practical effect of depriving appel lant of her right to appeal. The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. Also, it shall: (1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues; (2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s re cord containing its fi ndings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hear ing in the matter; and (3) cause to be developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforement ioned hearing. Additionally, the trial court shall then file the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records tr anscribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or before July 14, 2010.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 134A/3 ma

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 134A |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 573 maja 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 134A

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 573 maja 2014

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Sprostowania |
| 2014/C 134A/01 | Sprostowanie do ogłoszenia o konkursie otwartym — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Administratorzy (AD 7) w następujących dziedzinach: 1. Informatyka śledcza 2. Analiza operacyjna — (Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej C 88 A z dnia 27 marca 2014 r.) | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

Sprostowania

2014/C 134A/01

Sprostowanie do ogłoszenia o konkursie otwartym — EPSO/AD/278/14 – Administratorzy (AD 7) w następujących dziedzinach: 1. Informatyka śledcza 2. Analiza operacyjna — (Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej C 88 A z dnia 27 marca 2014 r.)

(Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej C 88 A z dnia 27 marca 2014 r.)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 134A/02 | Przegląd dzienników urzędowych serii C A — Konkursy | 2 |

2014/C 134A/02

Przegląd dzienników urzędowych serii C A — Konkursy

2

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

Sprostowania

| 3.5.2014 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 134/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 134/1

---

Sprostowanie do ogłoszenia o konkursie otwartym

EPSO/AD/278/14 – ADMINISTRATORZY (AD 7)

w następujących dziedzinach:

| 1. | INFORMATYKA ŚLEDCZA |
| --- | --- |

1.

INFORMATYKA ŚLEDCZA

| 2. | ANALIZA OPERACYJNA |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANALIZA OPERACYJNA

(
  Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej C 88 A z dnia 27 marca 2014 r.
  )

2014/C 134 A/01

Strona 7, część VIII, pkt 1:

zamiast:

Termin zgłaszania kandydatur (z zatwierdzeniem włącznie): 29 kwietnia 2014 r., godzina 12 (w południe), czasu obowiązującego w Brukseli.

powinno być:

Termin zgłaszania kandydatur (z zatwierdzeniem włącznie): 6 maja 2014 r., godzina 12 (w południe), czasu obowiązującego w Brukseli.

---

3.5.2014

| 3.5.2014 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 134/2

---

PRZEGLĄD DZIENNIKÓW URZĘDOWYCH SERII C A — KONKURSY

2014/C 134 A/02

Poniżej znajduje się lista Dzienników Urzędowych serii C A opublikowanych w tym roku.

O ile nie wskazano inaczej, Dzienniki Urzędowe opublikowane zostały we wszystkich wersjach językowych.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

RICARDO VERNAIR DODSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No.: 2:18-cv-908 

vs. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

GARY C. MOHR, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On September 20, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Initial Screen 

Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss some of Plaintiff’s claims for 

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and allow some of his claims to proceed. 

(See Initial Screen Report and Recommendation, Doc. 6). The parties were advised of their right 

to object to the Initial Screen Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of their 

failure to do so. There has nevertheless been no objection to the Initial Screen Report and 

Recommendation. 

 The Initial Screen Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

The following claims are hereby dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) 

for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted or for seeking monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from relief: 

(1) Claims against the ODRC; 

(2) Claims for money damages against the individual Defendants in their official 

capacities; 

(3) Claims challenging the duration of Plaintiff’s incarceration; 
2 

(4) Sixth Amendment claims; 

(5) Civil conspiracy claims; 

(6) Fourteenth Amendment claims based on changing Plaintiff’s statutory 

minimum parole eligibility date; and 

(7) Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Chrystal Alexander for 

intentionally withholding information beneficial to Plaintiff. 

The following claims may proceed at this time: 

(1) First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Alicia Handwerk, Ron 

Nelson, Jr., Tracy L. Reveal, Shirley A. Smith, and Ellen Venters; 

(2) Fourteenth Amendment claims based on false reports when Plaintiff’s parole 

was denied. 

The Clerk shall remove Document 6 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Gila TSIONY-BARRON, Appellant, v. Douglas BARRON, Appellee.

Nos. 3D17-710

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 132621 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132621 COA: 269369 Wayne CC: 73-000313 THOMAS BONDS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1230 

To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National 

Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. GARAMENDI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA NATIONAL 

4 HERITAGE AREA. 

5 Section 6001(a)(4)(A) of the John D. Dingell, Jr. 

6 Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Public 

7 Law 116–9) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: ‘‘In addition, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

9 National Heritage Area shall include the area depicted as 

10 ‘Rio Vista/Expansion Area’ on the map entitled ‘SacVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:13 Mar 20, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1230.IH H1230

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1230 IH

1 ramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Pro2 posed Boundary Expansion’ and dated February 2021.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Immtech Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the “Registrant”), pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended for the three month period ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Gary C. Parks, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, 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:
  1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and
  2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant and its subsidiaries.
  /s/ Gary C.
Parks
 Gary C.
Parks
 Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer August
11, 2008
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00 729 -CV In re Bobby T urner ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Pember

ton Filed: De cembe r 31, 2008
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed 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. 09- 40279 Su m m ar y Cal endar 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. CARL OS M EDI NA- PR UN EDA , 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 or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 08- C R - 749- 1 B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder alPu bl i c D ef enderappointed t o r epr es ent C ar l os M edi naP r u n e d a (M e d in a ) h a s m o v e d fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w a n d h a s file d a b r ie f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S . 7 38 ( 196 7) . M edi n a ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of the rec ord an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o n on frivo l ou s is s u e fo r ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40279 Document: 00511019960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 973

EX PA R TE JUA N A N TO N I O SC H W A R TZ, A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. F - 9 9 0 0 5 5 7 - P R I N T HE 2 6 5 I S TR I CT COURT TH FROM DALLAS CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicte d o f aggravated
ro bb e ry and

se nte nc e d to se ve nty -f

ive y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Applicant conte nds that his judgme nt incorre ctly ref lects t h at a $1000 fine was a ssessed. The trial c ourt found that a f ine was imposed when Ap p l i ca n t was initially place d on defe rre d
a dju dic a tio n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on , b ut t

he tr ia l c ourt did no t ver

ba lly ind ic a te that a f

ine wo uld b e im p o s e d w h e n h e a s s e s s e d p u n is h me n t a f te r A p p li c an t’ s c o mm

u n it y s u p e r v is ion w asL AURY - 2

subsequently

revoke d. The judg ment ref lects that a $1000 f

ine was assessed. Applicant is entitled to relief. Tay lor

v . S tate , 131 S.W .3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Relief is g rante d. The judg ment in Cause No. F- 9900557-PR in the 265 J udicial District th Court of Dallas County

is ref ormed to delete refe renc e to a fine being imposed. Applicant’s other g rounds ar e denie d.

Deliver ed: August 20, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
EX-10.20.1






Exhibit 10.20.1




AMENDMENTS TO

VISTEON CORPORATION

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK UNIT PLAN

(the “Directors’ Unit Plan”)




     As approved by the Board of Directors on March 27, 2009, paragraph (h) of Section 2 of the
Directors’ Unit Plan shall be amended to read as follows:




(h) “Exchange” means the principal securities exchange on which the Company’s stock
is traded or the over-the-counter market if the Company’s stock is not traded on a
securities exchange.



     As approved by the Board of Directors on March 27, 2009, paragraph (a) of Section 4 of the
Directors’ Unit Plan shall be amended to read as follows:




(a) Mandatory Deferrals. On the day after the date of each regular annual
meeting of stockholders of the Company, the Mandatory Deferral Account of each
Participant who is then an Outside Director shall be credited with a number of
additional Visteon Stock Units equal to the result obtained by (i) dividing (A)
$70,000; provided, however, that such amount shall be $59,925 from and after April
1, 2009 until such time as the Board shall determine that a higher amount up to
$70,000 shall be in effect (B) by the average of the high and low prices at which a
share of Company Stock shall have been sold on the Exchange on such date; and (ii)
rounding the quotient to four decimal places (each a “Mandatory Deferral”).



     As approved by the Board of Directors on March 27, 2009, Sections 5(a), 6(c)(1) and 6(c)(2) of
the Directors’ Unit Plan shall be amended by deleting the phrase “regular way” everywhere it
appears therein.
IllinOiS PIRG 328 s. J•"·~·· st. st •. s2o 1 chicago, ll60661 Education Fund -----------ww-\',.il - -lin.....; oi-sp-irg-.o-rg_.__(3-1-2)..:.. s4...;. 4_·4-43-3 -(p-h) 

info@illinoispirg.org (312) 559·6092 (fx) 

Testimony of Korbin Houston, Intern 

Illinois Public Research Interest Group (Illinois PIRG) 

In Support of Stronger Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards 

Hello EPA Hearing Committee, my name is Korbin Houston and I am an intern with the Illinois 

Public Interest Research Group (Illinois PIRG}.Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support 

of stronger emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. 

Strong emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, like trucks, will save consumers money. 

According to the National Resource Defense Council and its partner organizations who have 

researched these standards, consumers will save more by the decrease in the use of oil and the 

use of efficiency technology. Further, consumers support decreasing emissions. A Consumer 

Federation of America poll released in May 2015 found that a large majority of Americans favor 

requiring manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks (71 percent) while 

less than one quarter oppose such a requirement (24 percent). Consumers' voices should be 

considered with these standards. 

These standards are also important for public health. The reduction of toxic air pollution by the 

proposed rule would result in $37 billion in health and welfare benefits, including reductions in 

mortality and hospitalizations. 

Finally, these standards are important to me personally. I want these standards because I want 

to help the momentum of making America a greener and healthier place to live, for myself and 

the other citizens in this country. And it is beyond America, as global climate change affects the 

environment, the health of people of this planet, and the ecosystems that are going. Having 

these emissions standards, and making them strong and effective emission standards, is one 

part of the many actions that must be taken in order to have a healthier planet to live on. These 

standards are also important as me being a millennia!. Young people now, and in the future 

have to do deal with the consequence of action or inaction when it comes to climate change. 

In conclusion, stronger emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles will save consumers money, 

improve public health, and help fight global climate change. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

Korbin Houston 

korbin@illinoispirg. org