alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 02:42 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/05/2010 10:21 AM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|4SLB MACT floor analysis

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney,

As we discussed on the phone, if the MACT floor analysis for 4SLB engines

included the data for engines >1000 HP, the resulting emission limit would be

42.1 ppm CO. If the analysis is limited to engines <1000 HP, the resulting

emission limit is 47.0 ppm CO. The data is in the attached spreadsheet. The

sheets called "All Data" show all of the data for the 4SLB engines, and the

sheets called "top 12%" show the engines in the MACT floor and the emission

limit calculation.

(See attached file: 4SLB MACT Floor Analysis 6-23-2010.xls)

Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Mail Code D243-01

RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469

Fax: (919) 541-5450

king.melanie@epa.gov
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





                                    /S/ DAVID C. KAHN
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                    NOVEMBER 12, 2008
#### People v Ferguson

1st Dept: 137 AD3d 641 (Bronx)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)
# C_2013108EN.01003003.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/30

---

Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon/OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO)

(Case T-76/13)

2013/C 108/77

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staccata Srl (Como, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision issued on 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5) on the grounds that articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have indeed been fulfilled; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision issued on 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5) on the grounds that articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have indeed been fulfilled;

| — | Order the OHIM and STACCATA S.r.l. to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM and STACCATA S.r.l. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing a device of extended wings and the word element ‘QUARTODIMIGLIO’ for goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 260 597

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of extended wings and some of them the word element ‘LONGINES’ — Community trade mark registration No 225 714, International registrations No 401 319, No 529 334, No 610 902 and No 298 063 for goods in classes 9 and 14

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
#### In the Matter of John Lodge et al., Appellants, v Louis S. D’Aliso et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 909]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to compel the *526respondents, Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety and Westchester County, inter alia, to revoke Operations Order No. 02-026, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated October 22, 2002, which granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join necessary parties, denied their cross application to add certain individuals as necessary parties, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A party whose interest may be adversely affected by a potential judgment must be made a party in a CPLR article 78 proceeding *(see*CPLR 1001 [a]; *Matter of Martin v Ronan,*47 NY2d 486 [1979]; *Matter of McGuinn v City of New York,*219 AD2d 489 [1995]). In the present case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that those police officers who had already been promoted to the rank of sergeant were necessary parties since, if the petitioners were ultimately successful, those sergeants would lose their promotions. Further, since the applicable statute of limitations had already expired, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioners’ cross application to add those applicants as party respondents *(see Matter of Ogbunugafor v New York State Educ. Dept.,*279 AD2d 738 [2001]). The cross application did not toll the statute of limitations as the petitioners failed to include a copy of the proposed supplemental notice of petition and petition with their cross application *(see Perez v Paramount Communications,*92 NY2d 749 [1999]).

The petitioners’ failure to adequately explain why they did not include the promoted officers as respondents in a timely manner, despite being aware of the officers’ identities, precludes them from proceeding in their absence *(see*CPLR 1001 [b]; *see also Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown,*245 AD2d 968 [1997]) and from relying on the relation-back doctrine *(see Matter of 27th St. Block Assn. v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y.,*302 AD2d 155 [2002]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioners’ remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

     Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:

Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-69243),
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-01526),
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-28020),
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-77865),
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-105265),
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-111483),
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129353) and,
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-139057)

and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated February 21, 2007, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of EDO
Corporation, EDO Corporation management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of EDO Corporation, included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 2, 2007
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 Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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/ STUART GRAYSTON                    
|Stuart Grayston                        
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|May 22, 2009
#### In the Matter of Magena J. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Michael J., Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 871]

Appeal by the father from an intake order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ben Darvil, Jr., J.), dated April 5, 2016. The intake order, insofar as appealed from, provided that “records, reports, photographs or other documents provided pursuant to this order, shall not be disclosed to counsel not assigned to this matter” and that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.”

Ordered that the intake order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The intake order, insofar as appealed from, must be affirmed for the reasons stated in *Matter of Kaden J.M. (Quianna J.)*(152 AD3d 604 [2d Dept 2017] [decided herewith]).

Balkin, J.R, Cohen, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Escalade, Incorporated on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-16279, 333-52475
and 333-52477) of our report dated March 10, 2008, on our audit of the
financial statements of Martin Yale International GmbH as of December 31, 2007,
December 30, 2006 and December 31, 2005, and on our audit of the internal
control over financial reporting of the Company as of December 31, 2007, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ FALK & Co GmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

FALK & Co GmbH
Heidelberg, Germany
March 10, 2008

---
No. 10-7371.

#### Lester Joe Perry, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1152, 131 S. Ct. 939,

178 L. Ed. 2d 779,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 458,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                          EXHIBIT 23.1




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-18962 and 333-5709 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-91340 and
33-92918 on Form S-8 of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., of our report dated
September 28, 1996, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Energy
Conversion Devices, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 1996.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan

October 2, 1996
No. 10-6059.

#### Lakenya T. Riley, Petitioner v. Union Parish School Board, et al.

562 U.S. 1000, 131 S. Ct. 552,

178 L. Ed. 2d 367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8521,

November 1, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis *368denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 22, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# C_2013207EN.01005602.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/56

---

Action brought on 27 March 2013 — ZZ v OHIM

(Case F-26/13)

2013/C 207/92

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and claim for damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the appraisal report issued to the applicant in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the appraisal report issued to the applicant in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011;

| — | order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount 500 Euro — to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount 500 Euro — to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested appraisal report;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

---
No. 10-5667.

#### Rajul Ruhbayan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 697,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9143.

178 L. Ed. 2d 526,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 334, 178 L. Ed. 2d 217, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7322.
# C_2013274EN.01002201.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/22

---

Action brought on 2 August 2013 — Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council

(Case T-394/13)

2013/C 274/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1), insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1), insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant, and

| | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council (hereafter, ‘institutions’) made a manifest error of assessment by including plain polyester coated ceramic mugs in the scope of the product under investigation.

Second plea in law, alleging that, by grouping coated ceramic mugs with other types of stoneware tableware and kitchenware, the institutions failed to make a fair comparison in violation of Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (hereafter, ‘basic Regulation’).

Third plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation by failing to properly analyze the effects on the situation of the Union industry of the anti-competitive practices investigated by the Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authority). In this respect, the applicant submits that the institutions made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that anti-competitive practices did not have an effect on micro- and macro-economic indicators.

Bundeskartellamt

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation by failing to make an objective examination of the situation of the Union industry. In this respect, the applicant submits that the institutions made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that anti-competitive practices did not have an effect on micro- and macro-economic indicators

---
# C_2016270EN.01003801.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council

(Case T-276/13) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Countrywide anti-dumping duty - Individual treatment - Sampling - Rights of the defence - Non-discrimination - Duty of diligence))

(2016/C 270/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Growth Energy (Washington, DC, United States), and Renewable Fuels Association (Washington) (represented initially by P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicants and their members.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC, Plymouth Energy Company LLC, POET LLC and Platinum Ethanol LLC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC, Plymouth Energy Company LLC, POET LLC and Platinum Ethanol LLC;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and ePure, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and ePure, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
# Oklahoma City’s Rickey named DLA Employee of the Quarter 

/ Published June 19, 2015
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, 

Jimmie Rickey, acting operations division chief at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla., was named DLA Employee of the Quarter for the second quarter of this fiscal year.

“As acting operations Division Chief, Mr. Rickey has done an outstanding job providing positive leadership, guidance and direction,” said Ned LaViolette director of DLA Distribution Oklahoma City.

Rickey has more than 30 years of storage and distribution experience, as well as nearly 20 years of Distribution Standard System knowledge to provide leadership guidance to almost 30 supervisors at daily production meetings.  This allowed DLA Distribution Oklahoma City to excel in customer support and achieve overall “green” metrics for all 13 performance categories of the quarter.

He has responsibility for the stow and picking operation, in 11 major multi-million dollar warehouses with an $11 billion inventory account. The distribution center achieved a quarterly average issue denial rate of .29 percent, exceeding DLA Distribution’s goal by over 28 percent.

“Mr. Rickey’s proven results certainly speak for themselves,” said LaViolette.

Along with promoting teamwork within DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Rickey has also established relationships with DLA Aviation and Disposition Services which has benefited the entire DLA Oklahoma City team. He has been the catalyst for the timely delivery of over 25,000 stock replenishments to more than 20 DLA Aviation Shop Service Centers.

“Mr. Rickey’s support for the warfighter phenomenally exceeds standards and expectations,” concluded LaViolette.