alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State ofVermont [phone] 802-241-36oo Agency ofNatural Resources

Office of the Secretary [fax] 802-244-1102 103 South Main Street, Center Building Waterbury, VT o5671-0301 August 6, 2009 Ira Leighton Acting Regional Administrator U .S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA New

England Regional Office One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 

## AuG 3 110 ~p~NING00 g?,GoA`

Re: VERMONT SIP REVISIONS TOADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE Dear Acting Regional Administrator Leighton: Enclosed please find revisions to Vermont's State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating that the State of Vermont has met its obligations to address regional haze as required by the federal Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR 51 .309. We greatly appreciate the helpful comments received fromthe EPAon February 24, 2009 regarding our draft revisions to Vermont's State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze dated December 18, 2008. We have also received review comments on our draft Regional Haze SIP Revision fromthe U . S. Department ofAgriculture Forest Service, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We have revised our Regional Haze SIP in accordance with these comments . The enclosed compact disk includes a full copy of the current (June 2009) Vermont Regional Haze SIP Revision, including the supporting attachments and documentation. These documents are also available on the Air Pollution Control Division's website at : http://www

.anr .state.vt .us/air/Planning/htm/StateImplementationPlan htm . Attached please also find the following documentation: " ENCLOSURE 1 : PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SIP REVISIONS; " ENCLOSURE 2

: CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO40 CFR § 51 .102 ANDAPPENDIX V OF 40 CFR PART 51 ; " ENCLOSURE 3: LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMENTS RECEIVED, ANDVERMONT'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.

4or~a V ~R1V1O1 N 1 Department of Fish &

Wildlife . Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation . Department of Environmental ConservationThis submittal package includes the documentation necessary for the EPAto consider these SIP

revisions complete . If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Richard Valentinetti, Director of Vermont's Air Pollution Control Division at (802) 241-3840 . Sincerely,

Jonathan L. Wood Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources Enclosures (3) cc: Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 1 Anne Arnold, Manger, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region I Anne McWilliams, EPARegion 1 Richard Valentinetti, Director, Vermont Air Pollution Control Division
Exhibit 10.4 Debt Purchase Agreement


Exhibit 10.4




DEBT PURCHASE AGREEMENT




This Debt Purchase Agreement (“Debt Purchase Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of  April 27, 2012 by and among Gary B. Wolff (“GBW”), First Trust Management, (“FT”) and Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc. (“Laufer”).




WHEREAS, the parties to this Debt Purchase Agreement desire to modify that a certain promissory note dated September 13, 2008 (the “Promissory Note”) executed between GBW and Laufer by selling, assigning, transferring and conveying the rights and interests to partial payment of the Promissory Note in the amount of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars from GBW to FT.




NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:




1.

Transfer and Assignment. As permitted by Laufer, GBW hereby sells, assigns, transfers, and conveys unto FT its rights and interests to receive payments in the amount of $10,000 under the Promissory Note. The remaining rights and interests in the balance of the Debt, if any, will remain with GBW.




2.

Consideration. Consideration to be paid to GBW shall be a total of $10,000.




3.

Agreement to be bound. Laufer agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions applicable to GBW under the Debt.




4.

Entire Agreement. This Debt Purchase Agreement embodies the entire agreement between GBW and FT and supersedes any prior agreements, whether written or oral with respect to the subject matter thereof.




5.

Successors. This Debt Purchase Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each of the parties to this Debt Purchase Agreement and each of their respective successors and assigns.




6.

Counterparts. This Debt Purchase Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.




(Remainder of page intentionally left blank: signature page to follow)








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Debt Purchase Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first written above.




		
	 
	 

	Gary B. Wolff, P.C.


	 


	/s/ Gary B. Wolff

	 


	Name: Gary B. Wolff


	Its: President and Sole Owner


	 


	First Trust Management


	 


	/s/ John Zukowski

	 


	Name: John Zukowski


	 


	 


	ACCEPTED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED


	


Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc.


	 


	/s/ Bill Chaaban

	 


	Name: Bill Chaaban


	Its: President, CEO, Director 












2
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-08-00528-CR 

IN RE Alfred GARCIA 

Original Mandamus Proceedings1

PER CURIAM 

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

 Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice 

 Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: July 30, 2008 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED 

On July 22, 2008, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to order 

the trial court to hold a hearing and grant his motion for speedy trial. Mr. Tony Jimenez has 

been appointed to represent relator in the trial court. We conclude that appointed counsel for 

relator is also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issues presented. 

A trial court cannot be found to have abused its discretion until the complainant 

establishes that the court (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, (2) was asked to 

perform the act, and (3) failed or refused to do so. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 

837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, 

1

 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2007-CR-11340 and 2007-CR-11341, styled State of Texas v. 

Alfred Garcia, pending in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sharon MacRae. 
04-08-00528-CR 

the act of considering and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 

225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 

Respondent, however, has no duty to rule on relator’s pro se requests because relator is 

represented by appointed counsel, and relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick 

v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Consequently, the respondent did not 

violate relator’s rights. Therefore, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought, and the petition is DENIED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending 

criminal proceedings.2

PER CURIAM 

DO NOT PUBLISH 

 

2

 We further note that relator’s mandamus was postmarked on July 15, 2008, but not filed with this court until July 

22, 2008 and the Bexar County District Clerk shows that relator was sentenced in cause #2007-CR-11340 on July 

18, 2008 and that cause #2007-CR-11341 was dismissed as part of the agreement. 

- 2 -
#### Kendinya HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director of VA DOC, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6172

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Kendinya Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kendinya Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as time-barred and advised Hall that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see *also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Hall has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 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, this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Prime Air, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A  for  the  period  ending  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Blaine
Haug,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.



Dated:  April  30,  2004             /s/  Blaine  Haug
                                     -----------------
                                     Blaine  Haug
                                     Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Chief  Financial  Officer
                                     (Principal Executive Officer and
                                     Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


                                       16
<PAGE>
#### Frieda Kaehler et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*North German Lloyd, Appellant, and Atlantic Basin Iron Works, Inc., Defendant, Respondent.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

Motion for reargument or to amend the remittitur denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 407.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 367 THE CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRIANNE NICOLE RANA ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 5 , 20 2 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 28 2021

01/28/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0367
# Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program : Tier 1 Screening Battery (T1S)

C. Aubee, A. Blankinship , G. Akerman, T. Steeger

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

# Battery Performance

# Battery Performance: Goals

 

# Presenters

• Thyroid Pathway: C. Aubee

• Androgen Pathway:
A. Blankinship

• Estrogen Pathway: G. Akerman

• Overall Conclusions:
T. Steeger  Evaluate “Complementary” relationships among responses within the assays

 Evaluate “Redundancy” of responses across the assays

 Considered whether or not it is possible to reduce the number of assays and still adequately identify potential interactions with E, A, or T hormonal pathways

2

# Battery Performance

 

# Used the 2008 FIFRA SAP report as a guide, and its concepts of:

• “Complementarity” = Concordance of endpoints within an assay, and

• “Redundancy” = Concordance of endpoints across the assays that are intended to evaluate an interaction within a particular pathway, E, A, or T

• “Complementarity” and “redundancy” were evaluated in context of different “modalities” that span multiple levels of biological organization

— e.g. , molecular, cellular, organ, and organism

• Responses evaluated for each hormonal class, E, A, and T

34 

# Battery PerformanceAssay Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Basis of Causation Receptor/Target Binding Cell Signaling
Cell Response
Enzyme Activity
Organ Response Male System Integrity Female System Integrity Development (thyroid) Comparative System Integrity

Key

1 = ER Receptor Binding 2 = AR Receptor Binding

3 = ER Signal
Transduction 4 = Aromatase 5 = Steriodogenesis ( H295R Cell line)

6 = Hershberger 7 = Uterotrophic

8 = Male Pubertal

9 = Female Pubertal 10 = Amphibian Metamorphosis

11 = Fish Reproduction 

### RedundancyComplementarity

5 

# Battery Performance

### Battery Performance

Interaction with the Estrogen Hormonal Pathway 18

Interaction with the Androgen Pathway 17

Interaction with the HPT Axis 16



## *Overt Toxicity noted, but no detailed analysis

— Responses that co

- occur with systemic toxicity will be presented in July 2013 SAP on WoE

6 

# Number of Chemicals in Battery Performance Analysis
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>


March 30, 2004



Luna Technologies International, Inc.
61-A Fawcett Road
Coquitlam, British Columbia
Canada  V3K 6V2



Re: Luna Technologies International, Inc. - Form S-8

Dear Sir/Madame:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statement on Form
S-8  Number  333-112647  of our report  dated  March 24,  2004 on the  financial
statements of Luna Technologies International,  Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement.

Sincerely,


"Dale Matheson Carr-Hilton LaBonte"


Dale Matheson Carr-Hilton LaBonte
(formerly LaBonte & Co.)
Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, British Columbia
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 Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank
T. Kane, Vice President-Finance and 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 results of operation of
          the Company.


/s/ Frank T. Kane
-----------------
Frank T. Kane
Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003

     This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document or for any other purpose.
#### The State v. Stewart. (Six cases.)

Criminal law: appeal for delay: no appearance nor assignment of error: judgment affirmed.

*Appeal from Appanoose District Court.*

Saturday, March 5, 1887.

No appearance for appellee.

*A. J. Baher, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Beck, J.

In each case, upon an information filed before a justice of the peace charging defendant with the crime of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, he was convicted and committed in default of payment of the fine. Upon appeals to the district court, like judgments were rendered there. He now appeals in each case to this court.

The record before us contains transcripts of the proceedings and instructions to the jury, but no part of the evidence is set out.

There is no appearance or assignment of errors. We have examined the record with care, and find no error therein. It is hot our duty to support the judgment of the court below by discussing imaginary errors.

The case3 evidently belong to the class, now’very numerous, in which delay in the enforcements of the judgments in criminal cases is-obtained by appeals to this court. The defendant in these cases has been quite successful in his effort in that direction, having by his appeals delayed punishment for about one year.

*755The judgment of the district court in each case is affirmed, and a *procedendo*is ordered in each case to be issued as speedily as is authorized by the law and rales of this court, to the end that justice be no longer unlawfully delayed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             103,683
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     107,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,754,512
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           118,989
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,646,829)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       107,683
<SALES>                                            175,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   175,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      234,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (222,081)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    162,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       162,112
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .01



</TABLE>
1 Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:14 AM To: dmallory@resolutenergy.com Cc: Rios, Gerardo; Patrick Flynn; Kelly, Shaheerah Subject: NHPA Compliance for McElmo Creek Unit PSD Permit Application

Dwight,

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Ac t (NHPA), EPA must take in to account the effects o f its undertaking (e.g. the issuan ce of a PSD permit) on historic properties and afford the public an opportunity to comment before the agency may issue the PSD permit. C onsultation is required for a ll undertakings that have the potential to affect historic properties.

In order for the EPA to initiate the NHPA process pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3, we need your assessment of whether historic properties exist within the source’s area of potential effects. The assessment must include the information delineated in 36 CFR 800.4 and 800.5. In general, the assessment must identify the area of potential effects and the historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess the undertaking’s effects on these properties, and, if needed, seek ways to avoi d, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. This information is needed so that we can continue processing your PSD permit application. Additionally, we must complete the NHPA process prior to issuance of the final PSD permit.

Please contact me as soon as po ssible regarding this matter.

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579 Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
#### MISA and FESILI, Plaintiffs v. TU’ULIMA, Defendant

No. 47-1918

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” name: “Mana”]

Date unknown

Before A. M. NOBLE, *Associate Judge*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard before His Honor A. M. Noble, Associate Member of the High Court, and it appearing to the Court that the matters in controversy have been amicably settled between the parties, plaintiffs and defendant.

It is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged that the action be dismissed.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged that the plaintiffs pay the cost of this action, to-wit, $10.00.
EXHIBIT 10

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-11728) pertaining to the Employees Stock Options Plan,
Founders Warrants and other Warrants of Wavecom S.A., of our report dated March 15, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wavecom, included in its Annual Report
(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

ERNST &
YOUNG Audit

/s/JOHN MACKEYRepresented by John Mackey

Paris,
France
June 22, 2001



QuickLinks
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 27, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00175-CV 

BRIDGET PARSON AKA BRIDGET BROWN PARSON, Appellant 

V. 

BECKY COLE, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-01563-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

Appellant, a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, filed this appeal 

without an order from the local administrative judge granting her permission to 

appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101, 11.102. Accordingly, 

we directed appellant to file a copy of the order granting her permission. See id. § 

11.1035(b). Although we cautioned appellant that failure to comply within ten days 

would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice, more than ten days 

 
 –2– 

have passed and appellant has not responded. See id. We, therefore, dismiss 

the appeal. See id. 

210175F.P05 

 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BRIDGET PARSON AKA 

BRIDGET BROWN PARSON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-00175-CV V. 

BECKY COLE, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-01563-

B. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Schenck, Justices Osborne and 

Partida-Kipness participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered January 27, 2022.