alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Draft Proposal E-10 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC).   

Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft code

change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/iebc_concepts

Documentation (E-10) 

Objective: Require plans and specifications to provide detailed information needed to verify 

compliance with energy efficiency provisions. 

Suggested Code Change Proposal 

Add new Section [A] 106.2.5 as follows: 

[A] 106.2.5 Energy Efficiency. Construction documents for all work affecting the energy 

using systems of the building shall describe the existing conditions and proposed work in 

sufficient detail to determine the degree to which it is subject to this code and compliance 

with the applicable provisions of this code. This includes, but is not limited to building 

thermal envelope, mechanical systems and equipment, service water heating systems and 

equipment and lighting systems The construction documents shall provide details on the 

insulation materials and R-values; fenestration U-factors and SHGC’s; means and 

methods for air leakage reduction; mechanical system design criteria; mechanical and 

service water heating system and equipment types ,sizes, efficiencies and controls; duct 

sealing; duct and piping insulation and location; and lighting fixture schedule with 

wattage and details on lighting control type and location.

Reason: The issue of energy efficiency in existing buildings is addressed numerous times in 

the International Existing Buildings Code (IEBC; e.g., Sections 610, 707, 811, 908, and 1106), 

but there is nothing in the provisions of Section 106 that provides the designer or permittee 

guidance on what is supposed to be submitted on or with the plans and specifications. As a 

consequence, the code official may not have the needed information to validate compliance or 

even the relevant basis in the code to request this information. Existing buildings thus are more 

likely to be repaired, altered, added to, or have a change in occupancy that does not meet the 

applicable provisions of the energy code, leading to a lost opportunity to save energy, reduce 

operating costs, and improve the environmental footprint of the building. Forty percent of U.S. 

energy and seventy percent of U.S. electricity are consumed in existing buildings. This is 

clearly an opportunity to help reduce that by simply ensuring that the energy code is addressed 

in existing buildings when applicable and ensuring that code officials have the information 

necessary to validate compliance. 
Cost Impact: There is no cost impact because the provisions of the International Code Council 

codes related to energy are already required to be met as outlined in the IEBC.
Exhibit 32.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Salvatore J. Furnari, 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 operations of
      the Company.


                                       /s/ Salvatore J. Furnari
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Salvatore J. Furnari
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       August 16, 2004
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form10-K) of the Company fully complies with the
requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                   
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2015 |  | 
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | LOGO                                              
|                      |  |  |  | Allen F. Grum, President
(Chief Executive Officer)



|                      |  |  |  |                                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2015 |  | 
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | LOGO                                                    
|                      |  |  |  | Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)



70
<PAGE>
 
[MOSS-ADAMS LLP LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of Amendment
No. 2 (Registration No. 333-34067) of this Registration Statement of Group
Maintenance America Corp., on Form S-1 of our report dated August 7, 1997,
except for Note 11, as to which the date is August 18, 1997, relating to the
financial statements of MacDonald-Miller Industries, Inc., which appear in such
Prospectus. We also consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading
"Experts" in the Prospectus.


/s/ Moss Adams L.L.P.


Seattle, Washington
October 10, 1997
ex_258922.htm


Exhibit 10.43


 


 


 


INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT


 


This Indemnification Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made by and between Zach Swarts (the “Officer”) and GB Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) (jointly the “Parties”).


 


Recitals


 


	 	
			A.

				
			The Officer is serving as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

			



 


 


	 	
			B.

				
			The Company does not at this time have directors and officers and insurance (“D&O Insurance”).

			



 


Now therefore, in consideration of the obligations and promises made herein, the Parties agree as follows:


 


Agreement


 


	 	
			1.

				
			Willingness to Serve. The Officer has been willing to serve as an officer of the Company, even in the absence of D&O Insurance, in exchange for the rights of indemnification set forth under law, within the Company articles of incorporation and bylaws, and as stated herein.

			



 


 


	 	
			2.

				
			Indemnification. The Company hereby indemnifies the Officer against any loss, damage, cost or expense, including without limitation, legal fees, court costs, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement, actually and reasonably incurred by the Officer, by reason of the fact he is and was an officer or agent of the Company, at a minimum, to the fullest extent allowed under Nevada law. For this right of indemnification to be effective with regard to any suit, action or proceeding, the Officer must notify the Company within five calendar days of becoming aware of any suit, action or proceeding brought against the Officer, and the Company agrees to immediately defend or co-defend the suit, action or proceeding. In order for the Company to indemnify the Officer against the payment of the settlement of any claim, the Company must have been given the opportunity to approve the settlement.

			



 


 


	 	
			3.

				
			Efforts to obtain Insurance. The Company agrees to continue to try to obtain D&O insurance as finances and circumstances allow.

			



 


 


 


 


Dated: 11/12/2020                                  /s/   John Poss


GB SCIENCES, INC.


By: John Poss


Its: Chief Executive Officer


 


 


Dated: 11/12/2020                                   /s/ Zach Swarts


                                           Zach Swarts, Individual
# C_2022398EN.01003601.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/36

---

Action brought on 2 September 2022 — France v SRB

(Case T-540/22)

(2022/C 398/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin, J.-L. Carré and E. Timmermans, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board of 8 June 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board of 8 June 2022;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Decision 3/2021 of the Appeal Panel of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 8 June 2022 by which the Appeal Panel upholds the decision of the SRB not to grant to the banking group concerned the exemption from the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities applied on an individual basis, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB correctly interpreted and applied Article 12h of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p 1) and that it remained within the limits of its discretion. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB correctly interpreted and applied Article 12h of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p 1) and that it remained within the limits of its discretion.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had not breached the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had not breached the principle of legal certainty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had satisfied its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB had satisfied its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

---
Rule 233 

John Finnell 

to: 

Idalia Perez 

04/08/2011 03:16 PM 

Hide Details 

From: John Finnell <JFinnell@placer.ca.gov>

To: Idalia Perez/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

1 Attachment 

Rule 233 comparison.xlsx 

Idalia, 

Attached is a comparison of the emissions for the two boilers at Placer which must meet Rule 233. 

The 115 ppmv corrected to 12% CO2 would correspond to 59.7 pounds per hour and 0.14 lbs/ MMBtu at 

the Sierra Pacific Industries (stoker boiler). 

The 115 ppmv corrected to 12% CO2 would correspond to 95.1 pounds per hour and 0.24 lbs/MMBtu at 

the Rio Bravo (circulating fluidized bed boiler). 

During startup and shutdown, the limits in the table 302.1.2 are lower than the equivalent ppmv limit. 

Does that help answer your question? 

John Finnell 

Sr. Air Pollution Control Engineer 

Placer County APCD 

3091 County Center Drive, Suite 240 

Auburn, CA 95603 

(530) 745-2324

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or 

legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized 

interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the 

Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender 

and destroy all copies of the communication.

 
Two sources are affected by Rule 233

Sierra Pacific Industries 414 MMBtu/hr

Stoker Boiler

CO @12%CO2 145.8

lbs/hr 46.05

lbs/hr if CO were 1000 ppmv 315.8

lbs/MMBtu 0.76

NOx @12%CO2 62.5

lbs/hr 32.43

lbs/hr if NOx were 115 ppmv 59.7

lbs/MMBtu 0.14

Rio Bravo 398.5 MMBtu/hr

Cirulating Fluidized Bed

CO @12%CO2 0.05

lbs/hr 0.03

lbs/hr if CO were 400 ppmv 240.0

lbs/MMBtu 0.60

NOx @12%CO2 38.7

lbs/hr 32.0

lbs/hr if NOx were 115 ppmv 95.1

lbs/MMBtu 0.24
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 76698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30166]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8549]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Cameroon

    Pursuant to Section 7031(b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. 
L. 112-74) (``the Act''), as carried forward by the Further Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2013 (Div. F, Pub. L. 113-6), and Department of 
State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it 
is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the 
requirements of Section 7031(b)(1) of the Act and similar provisions of 
law in prior year Acts with respect to Cameroon and I hereby waive this 
restriction.
    This determination and the accompanying Memorandum of Justification 
shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 5, 2013.
William J. Burns,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30166 Filed 12-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
```
# C_2022359EN.01008801.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/88

---

Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-465/22)

(2022/C 359/107)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

| — | for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:






  — | EUR 233 051,96, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 200 900,30, interest of EUR 2 014,25 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 30 137,41. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising:

—

EUR 233 051,96, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 200 900,30, interest of EUR 2 014,25 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 30 137,41.

| — | further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made. |
| --- | --- |

—

further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.

| — | for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law:

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.

---
EXHIBIT 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-53367 and 333-106079 of Public Service Company of New Mexico on Form S-3 of
our reports dated March 8, 2004 (which express an unqualified opinion and
include explanatory paragraphs referring to the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations," effective January 1, 2003 and the change in actuarial valuation
measurement date for the pension plan and other post-retirement benefits from
September 30 to December 31), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Public Service Company of New Mexico for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 10, 2004
**OFFICE OF**  **THE A**  **’ HORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS .** 

**AUSTIN**T&we h8s been lcindlysuhmltted to us, for ammlaat1on ln cmnlBut1m vith the instMt quest2rm, 8 oopy of smtract lmp4ogo betvean the Bureau or Ycrrdr and ma8 of ths
u. 3. uavy and the Brrnm-Bellovrr-Columbla Camtruotlaa COJEpsny, for the cclrrtrwtiap of & AmfalNr Bara at corpus Chrtitl,MdflwmM cl-tionMd oons:beMtioa&all partltlalt

provlslcma

Md featuws thereoi, w &TO rewhed the aawlu#IaL, upal the pwlo~ples aad md*r tbo l Ithor1- ties dlwuswd in our opinlm Ro. O-3049,thst ths SPafItBellows-Oolumbla

CowtrwtlaD Ccqsny **Is thereby**  **oarcrt1tut.d UI**  lJldepeodant

Oaitractor **vlth the**  **Federal CowrnlAat**  **for the**  cmstr+ca of the dmorlbti projeot~1 a *ooot-plus7sitssll~ izirglz% &rxY3as,m therefore,

**\nder** the l

ithorltlse

citedsnd dlaoussed la the oplnlm adverted

to, that f&e tu 1Wled by APtlA.e7047, Seotian4U, Subsectlaa (a),RevisedCivil Statutes of Texas, aouldocurrtitutlamlly bs Ilisposed

upm and oolleatsd

fPcm the Ims star Cmt corpmtiaa, &a rrell*r of ruoh omt, ova thou&suehtushouldbeps&wdm~ part oftlmpwoimnprioe, tosuohlnba~~teap~to u&dultUmtely to the Fedor Qovmwmnt, so 8s to lnamsse, pm3 tmto, the 

### oalstruotioa

costsor this pro$Bat.

As la opipian

Ilo. O-5049,our omolusiop kero U to the tuaMlfty of the 

### traaswtiar fads addlfi~ rupport ia tlab

express

updm? by the oov~rnmeat, irr t&o 

### rme oithe oultlwt (Art * mabdlvlslcn 0). to reblburseths ganmlomtrrotor,8Favn-&ll~~olrrrMlC~~- tim ckmp8lq, to the following exte@itr
'(0) The net aml?ult of My u. s. soala Becurlty

taxesand arty

state or 1QMl tuss, fees, orahwgesuhlch the amtrsatormyks uind aiaecrountoftblsamtraatto~yaxOr maax "4 plant,equlpMat, prooess,0r~tlcm, mbtwiAls,
or perscnael

widermy applloabla alld IAV or regulatlms issued by aoqmtont ruthorlty."
'&apo8slble&8iu1o~tb@ taoa, ShrCbnuatBorpO=- tlcmr~tB*awrr-Bellar8-Col~~abisCmrtrwtioaO~y,rsd, lntum, ofsuuh lstterroapsaxa~8ttbe FederU Oar-t, for fd~smt, under the above quotedprovl8lan of the mm-Ealorabl.

Oe0rg.H. shsggyd, -3

treat,ofcenwnttaxes prlcltoth0 Stste,is l crantrotsray betwan **ths** parties **arising out**  **o? ax&rsot**  **nthor tbm**  the taxmeasux'~

hero tiVolv~d,

sad huoe M the ~XW@OP aoope of this oplnian. Howwr, ve do sky tbt suoh tex me8sura1s applloablo to salor of emtby the frQo 8tU cmt Corpo.retlon, ueopltethe dwmlw&ms oantalne6 sn Its lettertmnsmittiogbids snd in p-o mder oovorlag shipments

oioemsnt, toths l

trwtthatsuahawtorials "are for the axeluslv6 use a? the Unltod 8tatessad tit10 to the w vests in theUnited SWter upar thoil, d@liV.~y to the custodyof Bswm mid Root, tie.,U. S. Bellovs, aa& co1umb$a

Canrt~tlmCornpaag,ceatrrotfOy~090,x~~ AlrT~ingS~tim,Corpu8 cmi8tl,Toxa8,"~& "Fede~l sxclw tu, statesnclloerl tams avenotappUacrbl6to thl8 purehue ior tbs sole Waount o? the UnitedSt8tu."

&a
EY GENEHAT. BI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJEET SINGH, AKA Ranjit Singh,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 74274 Agency No. A200

- 943

- 592

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 26, 2016 ** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ , Circuit Judges. Ranjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 29 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 74274

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F .3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based o n Singh’s inconsistent testimony as to w hether he recognized the individuals who attacked him in Aug ust 2010 , and the circumstances under which
he was found after that attack

. See id . at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the “totali ty of the circumstances”). Singh ’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel the contr ary result. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the abs ence of credible testimony, Singh ’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Singh’s CAT claim also fa ils because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any evidence
that compel s the finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned

to India

. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 922

- 23 (9th Cir. 2006)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.