alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TGN-2014.06.19-S1A2 Ex 10.5 ADGE Agt A2




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE FACILITIES, SUPPORT SERVICES, AND BUSINESS AGREEMENT


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE FACILITIES, SUPPORT SERVICES AND BUSINESS AGREEMENT dated as of November 12, 2013 (this “Amendment”) between Tecogen Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tecogen”), and American DG Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation (“ADG Energy”). 


WHEREAS, Tecogen and ADG Energy are parties to a Facilities, Support Services and Business Agreement, dated July 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”); 


WHEREAS, Section 1(g) of the Agreement provides that ADG Energy shall be granted exclusive representation rights to the Tecogen Cogeneration Product in the New England States;


WHEREAS, Tecogen and ADG Energy wish to amend the agreement to allow Tecogen to appoint additional representation in the New England States;


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


		
	1.
	Section 1(g) of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows:




(g)    Exclusivity:  In the New England States American DG Energy shall have the right to purchase Cogeneration products directly from Tecogen as described in the agreement so long as the American DG Energy’s intended use is to retain long-term ownership of the Cogeneration product and utilize it for the production and sale of electricity and thermal energy (i.e., ADG Energy “Onsite” energy projects). Tecogen will not sell its products to parties for which the intended use is to earn revenue from metered energy to third parties (i.e., ADG Energy “On-Site Utility” energy projects) other than to ADG Energy. In cases where ADG Energy has the opportunity to sell Cogeneration products to an unaffiliated party in the New England States and where Tecogen has no other appointed representation in that specific region, ADG Energy may buy/resell the Cogeneration product as specified under the terms of this agreement. If, however, Tecogen has appointed a local exclusive representative in that specific New England region, ADG Energy will defer to the local representative for pricing and other specific details for working cooperatively.   


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Facilities and Support Services Agreement to be duly executed and delivered by their proper and duly authorized representatives as of the effective day first above written. 


TECOGEN INC.                        AMERICAN DG ENERGY INC.




By: /s/ Bonnie J. Brown_________                    By: /s/ Jesse Herrick_____________
Name:    Bonnie J. Brown                        Name:    Jesse Herrick
Title:     Chief Financial Officer                    Title:     Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-10670.

#### Margaret Rudin, Petitioner v. Nevada.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 157,

181 L. Ed. 2d 72,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5991.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 126 Nev. 760, 367 P.3d 824.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GILDAS DOUSSET
, Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY and STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 14

- 480

[ September 16, 2015 ]

Appeal from Residency Appeals Committee of Florida Atlantic University; Judge; L.T. Case No. Z23267669

.

George Castrataro, MPH and Lisa J. Conrey of The Law Offices of George Castrataro, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Christopher F. Stoll and Amy Whelan of the National C enter for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA, for appellant.

Lawrence F. Glick and Daniel A. Jones, Boca Raton, for appellee Florida Atlantic University.

Pamela Jo Bon di, Attorney General, Allen Win sor, Solicitor General, and Adam S. Tanenbaum, Chief De puty Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for appellee State of Florida.

Robert F. Rosenwald, Jr., Raul J. Aguila and Nicholas E. Kallergis for Amicus Curiae City of M iami Beach and City of Orlando

.

P ER C URIAM

.

In light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United

States in Obergefell v. Hodges , 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), we reverse the determination of the Residency Appeals Committee of Florida Atlantic University denying the appellant’s request for cl assification as a Florida resident based on his Massachusetts marriage to his same

- sex spouse.

Revers ed.

C IKLIN
, C.J., S TEVENSON and G ROSS

, JJ., concur.2 * * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### Exhibit 32.1

### 

### 

### CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Community Properties Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Michael Wilson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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/ J. Michael Wilson               
|------------------------------------
|J. Michael Wilson                   
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|May 15, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37144-37145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18224]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefits (EB) Period 
for Alaska

    This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under 
the EB Program for Alaska.

Summary

    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding the State's EB status:
    <bullet> May 16, 1998  Alaska's 13-week insured unemployment rate 
for the week ending May 16, 1998, fell below 6.0 percent and was less 
than 120 percent of the average for the corresponding period for the 
prior two years, causing Alaska to trigger ``off'' EB effective June 7, 
1998.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the States by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a State beginning an EB period, the State 
employment security agency will furnish a written notice of potential 
entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular 
benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)). In 
the case of a State ending an EB period, the State employment security 
agency will furnish a written notice of the EB period and its effect on 
individual rights to EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(4)) to each individual who is 
filing a claim for EB.
    Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to 
inquire about their rights under the programs, should contact the 
nearest State employment service office or unemployment compensation 
claims office in their locality.

[[Page 37145]]

    Signed at Washington, D.C. on July 2, 1998.
Raymond Uhalde,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training.
[FR Doc. 98-18224 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

v.

JACOB WILLIAM CARMAN

,

Appellant

. No. 84730

- 9

- I (consolidated with

84731

- 7

- I, 84732

- 5

- I, 84733

- 3

- I,

84734

- 1

- I, 84735

- 0

- I, 84736

- 8

- I

, 84737

- 6

- I, 84738

- 4

- I, 84739

- 2

- I)

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

P ER C URIAM

— In these consolidated appeals, Jacob William Carman filed

notices of appeal challenging the imposition of $500 Victim Penalty Assessment s

(VPA s ) imposed in judgment s and sentence s entered in ten separate superior court

causes

. When Carman was sentenced on these matters in 2022, the VPA was a

mandatory condition of all sentences. Former RCW 7.68.035 (2018). In 2023, the

legislature added a subsection to RCW 7.68.035 that prohibits courts from imposing the

VPA on indigent defendants as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3)

. State v. Ellis

,

___ Wn.

App. 2d

___, 530 P.3d 1048

, 1055 (2023)

. The State does not dispute that Carman is

indigent and concedes that this matter should be remanded to strike the VPA from

Carman ’s judgment s and sentence s

. 1

We accept the St ate’s concession and remand to the superior court to strike th e

1 Carman also challenges language in each of the underlying judgments and sentences providing

that interest will accrue on any restitution imposed. The legislature also amended RCW 10.82.090 after

Carmen was sentenced to allow the sentencing court to waive interes t on restitution upon consideration

of several factors, including indigency. However, the sentencing court did not order restitution in

connection with any of the underlying matters, therefore the interest provision has no effect and it is

unnecessary to r emand for reconsideration or amendment of that provision.No. 84730

- 9

- I / 2

- 2

- VPA provision s from the underlying judgment s and sentence s

.

FOR THE COURT:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00486-CR

Jemadari Chinua WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B19-346

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED, and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the 

indictment.

The State’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.

SIGNED October 19, 2022.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
No. 10-7841.

#### Benjamin Ochoa-Ramirez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1162, 131 S. Ct. 971,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 41.

178 L. Ed. 2d 798,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 641.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

               Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. listed below of our report dated August 8, 2003, with
respect to the financial statements of IdeaForest.com, Inc. for the year ended
January 31, 2001, included as Exhibit 99 in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1) for the year ended February 1, 2003 of Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
FORM        REGISTRATION NO.
----        ----------------
<S>         <C>                   <C>
S-4         333-80763             10 3/8% Senior Subordinated notes Due 2007
S-8         333-10093             1994 Executive Incentive Plan
S-8         33-72445              1998 Incentive Compensation Plan
S-8         33-32809              Employee Savings and Profit Sharing Plan
S-8         33-37355              1990 Employees Stock Option and Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
S-8         33-49690              1990 Employees Stock Option and Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
S-8         333-10087             1990 Employees Stock Option and Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
S-8         333-10091             1996 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors
S-8         333-55278             Nonqualified Stock Option Awards to Certain Employees
S-8         333-55280             Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. Savings Plan 401(k)
</TABLE>


                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio,
September 5, 2003
#### *In re Adoption of T.A.W. R.B. et al., Petitioners, v. C.W., Respondent,*

No. 92127-0.

Motion for discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 47364-0-II, July 7, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 799. *Granted*January 14, 2016.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2792 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2792

   To require the Secretary of Transportation to publish a notice of 
  proposed rulemaking concerning seat belts on school buses, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2019

Mr. Gottheimer (for himself, Mr. Reed, and Ms. Stefanik) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of Transportation to publish a notice of 
  proposed rulemaking concerning seat belts on school buses, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Secure Every Child Under the Right 
Equipment Standards Act of 2019'' or the ``SECURES Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROPOSED RULEMAKING.

    (a) Requirements.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking on new Federal standards for school bus 
seat belt requirements on all school buses, regardless of gross vehicle 
weight rating.
    (b) Considerations.--In the proposed rulemaking, the Secretary 
shall consider--
            (1) the safety benefits of a lap/shoulder belt system (also 
        known as a ``Type 2 seat belt assembly'');
            (2) the conclusion of the National Transportation Safety 
        Board that ``Lap/shoulder belts provide the highest level of 
        protection for school bus passengers'' and that ``Properly worn 
        lap belts provide some benefit,'' while ``Properly worn lap/
        shoulder belts provide greater benefit by reducing injuries 
        related to upper body flailing'';
            (3) the 2015 announcement by the Administrator of the 
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mark Rosekind, 
        stating that the agency believes ``that every child on every 
        school bus should have a three-point seat belt'';
            (4) any innovative approaches to seat belt detection, seat 
        belt reminder systems, and seat belt violation alert systems 
        that could be incorporated into school bus designs; and
            (5) existing experience from the States that have already 
        required school buses to be equipped with seat belts.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAR MENDEZ ZOLANO, AKA 

Ubaldo Cabrera-Diaz, AKA Cesar MendezZolano,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 15-73099

Agency No. A095-140-268

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Cesar Mendez Zolano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 16 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73099

immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal and voluntary 

departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual 

findings for substantial evidence, Ramos v. I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 

2001), and review de novo questions of law, Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 

(9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez 

Zolano is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a lack of good 

moral character where he provided false testimony under oath and did not recant 

until he had been in proceedings for more than two years. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1101(f)(6) (barring a finding of good moral character for any person who has 

given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit); 

1229b(b)(1)(B); Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(“recantation must be voluntary and without delay” (citation and quotation marks 

omitted)). 

The BIA did not err in rejecting Mendez Zolano’s contention that his false 

testimony was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, where Mendez Zolano 

failed to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the 

alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was not plain on the face of the record.

The agency did not violate due process in pretermitting without a further 

hearing Mendez Zolano’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary 
3 15-73099

departure based on failure to show good moral character, where Mendez Zolano

was afforded the opportunity to brief his eligibility, and has not established that he 

was prejudiced by the denial of further hearings in his case. See Lata v. INS, 204 

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail 

on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 LODGIAN, INC.By:
    /s/  Edward J. RohlingEDWARD J. ROHLINGChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ James A. MacLennanJAMES A. MACLENNANExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-1452.

#### John Henry Ryskamp, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

565 U.S. 822, 132 S. Ct. 109,

181 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6811.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-10394.

#### Damon A. Williams, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 835, 132 S. Ct. 139,

181 L. Ed. 2d 58,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5807.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
No. 09-11163.

#### In re Bruce Murray, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 149,

178 L. Ed. 2d 259,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7736.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 10-11029.

#### Francisco Antonio Serafin-Rodriguez, aka Francisco Antonio Serafin, aka Francisco Serafin, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 863, 132 S. Ct. 205,

181 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6532.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 410.
No. 10-7750.

#### Candace June Elmer, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 965,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 299.

178 L. Ed. 2d 794,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 401.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18061]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-3267-000]


PSI Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 1, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 9, 1998, PSI Energy, Inc., tendered for 
filing a Power Supply Agreement between Wabash Valley Power 
Association, Inc., PSI and Cinergy Services, Inc., dated January 1, 
1998. This agreement is to succeed PSI's Rate Schedule FERC No. 241, 
the Interim Scheduled Power Agreement betwen itself and Wabash Valley 
Power Association, Inc.
    Copies of the filing were served upon Wabash Valley Power 
Association, Inc., Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and the 
Indiana Office of the Consumer Counsel.
    PSI Energy, Inc., requests waiver of the Commission's notice 
requirements to allow the Interim Agreement to terminate as of year end 
1997 and for the Long-Term Agreement to become effective January 1, 
1998.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions and protests should be filed on or before July 10, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18061 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-10472.

#### Allington Dottin, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 838, 132 S. Ct. 145,

181 L. Ed. 2d 63,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6071.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-1438.

#### Yu Ning, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 821, 132 S. Ct. 107,

181 L. Ed. 2d 34,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6675.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.