alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 84903 

# FR.

AUG 1 1 2022

A. BROWN PREME COURT DEPU CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF NEVADA

SOUTHERN NEVADAAUTO SALES, LLC, D/B/A OPEN LOT USED CAR SALES, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, INAND FORTHE COUNTYOF CLARK;AND THE HONORABLE BITA YEAGER, DISTRICTJUDGE, Respondents, and FRANKIE GONZALES, M.D., Real Party in Interest. ORDERDENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a torts action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker u. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizingthat writ reliefis an extraordinaryremedy and that thiscourt has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we willnot consider writpetitions that challenge ordersdenying motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A

## ÇJ Parraguirre

• J. Silver , C.J. general rule applies here. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challengingdenialsofmotions to dismiss). We therefore

ORDERthe petition DENIED.'

cc: Hon. BitaYeager, District Judge Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson Watson & Zeppenfeld, Chtd. Injury Lawyers ofNevada Huang&Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision ofthismatter under a general order ofassignment.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (o) I947A 2
No. 11-127.

#### Spansion, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. International Trade Commission, et al. Qualcomm Incorporated, Petitioner v. International Trade Commission, et al.

No. 11-128.

565 U.S. 1058, 132 S. Ct. 758,

181 L. Ed. 2d 482,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8529.

November 28, 2011.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

*483Same cases below, 629 F.3d 1331.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report of WORLD DIAGNOSTICS
INC.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Ken  Peters, chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  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 fully presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


By:  /s/ Ken Peters
     ------------------
     Ken  Peters

     August  18,  2002
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**Certification
      by the Chief Financial Officer 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, I, Barbara Duncan, hereby certify that,
      to the
      best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOV
      Pharmaceutical, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in
      the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      DOV and will be retained by DOV and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Barbara
              DuncanBarbara
              DuncanChief
                Financial Officer
              August
                9, 2005




This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
      to the
      extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act,
      except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
      reference.
ITEM: Walnut Tea Cake (WTC) ************************** 

 (PRIMARY) * MONOGRAPH NO: 3A10 

 ************************** 

NSN: 8920 01 503 0696 ITEM SPECIFICATION: PCR C 024 POLY TRAY 

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM: 

APPEARANCE: Off white to ivory color interior with a golden top. Dark 

grayish brown walnut pieces. Dense uniform crumb. 

 ODOR: Sweet vanilla, slight walnut aroma. 

FLAVOR: Sweet vanilla and walnut. 

TEXTURE: Soft dense moist cake. Moist yet firm walnuts. 

 ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT: 80 DEGREES F: 36 months 

 100 DEGREES F: 6 months 

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES: 

 Appearance: Darkening of interior and exterior of cake and nuts. 

Odor: Stale, oxidized, or rancid and bitter walnut. 

 Flavor: Off, oxidized, rancid, or stale and rancid walnut. 

 Texture: Dry cake. Sticky surface. Nuts may become soft and chewy. 

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Intelligent Maintenance Advisor for Turbine 
Engines (IMATE)

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 2, 1998, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the 
parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are General Electric Company, acting 
by and through GEAE, Cincinnati, OH; General Electric's Corporate 
Research and Development Division, Schenectady, NY; Lockhead Martin 
Company, Bethesda, MD, acting by and through its Control Systems 
Division, Johnson City, NY; Oceana Sensor Technologies, Inc., Virginia 
Beach, VA; Applied Research Laboratory of Penn State University, State 
College, PA. The nature and objectives of the venture are to implement 
Cooperative Agreement No. MDA972-98-3-002, sponsored by the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency. The technical objective of this 
program is to design and test a condition-based intelligent maintenance 
advisor for turbine engines in order to reduce cost of service, improve 
maintenance planning, and minimize unnecessary component removals. In 
addition, the IMATE program will provide the technologies needed for 
developing the global, propulsion asset-management infrastructures.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 98-19742 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 41587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20720]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[OR-130-1020-00; GP8-0275]


Notice of Meeting of the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory 
Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District.
NOTICE: Notice of Meeting of the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory 
Council.

ACTION: Meeting of the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council; 
August 27, 1998, in Spokane Washington.

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

SUMMARY: A meeting of the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council 
will be held on August 27, 1998. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m., 
at the Spokane District Office of the Bureau of Land Management, 1103 
N. Fancher, Spokane, Washington, 99212-1275. The meeting will adjourn 
upon conclusion of business, but no later than 4:00 p.m.. Public 
comments will be heard from 10:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.. If necessary 
to accommodate all wishing to make public comments, a time limit may be 
placed upon each speaker. At an appropriate time, the meeting will 
adjourn for approximately one hour for lunch. Topics to be discussed 
include: the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project and 
implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 
Livestock Grazing Management.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Hubbard, Bureau of Land 
Management, Spokane District Office, 1103 N. Fancher Road, Spokane, 
Washington, 99212-1275; or call 509-536-1200.

    Dated: July 29, 1998.
Gary J. Yeager,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-20720 Filed 8-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
No. 11-5478.

#### Kenneth John Leuluaia-lii, Petitioner v. Stephen D. Sinclair, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.

565 U.S. 1151, 132 S. Ct. 1081,

181 L. Ed. 2d 799,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 506.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 909, 132 S. Ct. 317, 181 L. Ed. 2d 196, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5913.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0394

_________________

JACOB LEE SMITH,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PATTI

RENEGER, KRISTA MIX, CITY OF HELENA,

MT, CITY OFFICER BRIAN FISCHER, CITY 

OFFICE, JOHN DOE, TARA HARRIS, LEWIS 

AND CLARK COUNTY, WENDY HOLDENJOHNSON, PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE

REGION 4,

 Respondents and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Jacob Smith, to all counsel of record,

and to the Honorable Michael F. McMahon, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 10 2022

08/10/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0394
OAR Priorities & Outlook 

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Meeting 

Robert J. Meyers 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator

U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation

January 8, 2009 

1 

2 

• 

• 

• 

Overview 

CAIR Update 

• NO2 NAAQS 

Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze 

PM2.5 designations 

1 
Clean Air Interstate Rule 

Vacatur Reversed, Rule Remanded 

• U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) Decision rendered 

December 23rd 

• Remand without vacatur for “EPA to conduct further 

proceedings consistent with our prior opinion . . .” 

• Focused on preservation of “environmental values” 

Vacatur “would sacrifice clear benefits to public health 

and environment (Justice Rogers, concurring) 

• No particular schedule, but no indefinite stay 

3 

4 

NO2 NAAQS 

• 

• 

• 

completed during 2008. 

• 

• 

and letters. 

• 

2010. 

Lead NAAQs finalized October 25, 2008, NO2 next 

NAAQS in a world of “all NAAQs, all the time.” 

October 1996, EPA decided not to revise previous 

primary or secondary NAAQs; standard left at 53 ppb 

(100ug/m3) annual arithmetic average. 

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) and Risk and 

Exposure Assessment (REA) for N02 primary NAAQs 

CASAC meeting on final REA December 10, 2008 

EPA working on ANPR for NO2 NAAQs consistent with 

NAAQs process outlined in Deputy Administrator memos 

Proposed rule June 26, 2009; Final rule January 22, 

2 
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze SIPs 

Ozone 

• 26 SIPs with attainment demonstrations due in June 2007 – 22 SIPs 

submitted

• EPA is coming to closure on ozone attainment demonstrations which have 

been submitted.

• Notice to those states where it is believed the demonstrations are not 

approvable -- EPA will take action on proposing a disapproval

PM2.5

– 53 SIPs with attainment demonstrations due in April 2008 – 20 SIPs 

have been submitted

Regional Haze

– 53 SIPs due December 2007 – 14 final SIPs submitted to date 

– 11 SIPs have been submitted from the CAIR states 

– EPA was sued in Oct. 2008 compelling us to make findings of failure to 

submit for the late SIPs 

5 

6 

24-Hour PM2.5 Designations 

Timeline 

Dec. 18, 2008 

Final Desi

l April 2009 

(no later than effective date) 

Effective Date of Fi April 2009 

211 counties designated Nonattainment 

gnations FR notice published January 2009 

States can submit complete, quality By February 20, 2009 

assured, certified 2008 data 

Supplementa Amendments FR Notice 

nal Designations 

(90 days after FR publication) 

Milestone Approximate Date 

3 
Appendix Appendix

. . . as suggested by Rob Brenner. . . . as suggested by Rob Brenner.

4 
With only 12 With only 12 1⁄2 days left . . . days left . . .

. . . and since I . . . and since I’m not upside down in my m not upside down in my

mortgage . . . mortgage . . .

5 
. . . at least I don . . . at least I don’t think I am . . . t think I am . . .

Presenting . . . Bob Meyers Presenting . . . Bob Meyers’ Clean Air Clean Air

•Prophecy Prophecy

•Predictions Predictions

&

•Peculiarities Peculiarities

6 
Why History Might Repeat Itself Why History Might Repeat Itself

Why History Might Not . . . Why History Might Not . . .

7
No. 11-6202.

#### Jose David Portillo-Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 956, 132 S. Ct. 434,

181 L. Ed. 2d 282,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7200.

October 11, 2011.

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

Same case below, 443 Fed. Appx. 239.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

OMAR JERMEL DIXON, a/k/a O Dixon, a/k/a Omar Dixon-El, 

a/k/a Omar Jermel Dixon-El, a/k/a Omar Germal Dixon, a/k/a 

Omar Jermal Dixon, a/k/a Omar Jermal Dixon El,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00209-JRS-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2011 Decided: April 28, 2011

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omar Jermel Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Omar Jermel Dixon appeals the district court’s denial 

of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence 

based on the crack cocaine Guidelines Amendments. The district 

court found that Dixon had been held responsible for more than 

4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine at his original sentencing and 

was therefore ineligible for a reduction. We hold that the 

district court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Woods, 581 F.3d 531, 539 (7th Cir. 2009)

(holding that “a finding that the defendants were responsible 

for at least 4.5 kilograms is not inconsistent with the 

conclusion of the original sentencing court that the defendants 

were responsible for amounts in excess of 1.5 kilograms”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Cc: 

 

1 June 2012 

FLASH POINT OF LIQUID SUSPENSION

Laboratory Project ID: 

Work request Number: 

Service Code Number: 

Background

The flash point of fluorosurfactant liquid suspension is required for transportation 

classification per US DOT regulations. Tests were conducted on a liquid suspension 

submitted from notebook reference . 
Test Method

Flash point tests were conducted according to ASTM D93-02, “Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by 

Pensky-Martens Closed Tester,” Method ‘B’, using a Petrolab Model PMA-4 automated tester. The 

suspension was gently stirred in its shipping bottle until visual inspection showed that all solids had been 

suspended throughout the body of the liquid. 75 cc of this liquid was then poured into a brass test cup 

which was then covered with a snug-fitting lid containing a trap door. The liquid was stirred and its 

temperature increased at a controlled rate of approximately 1.3o C/min. In this case an agitator speed of 

250 RPM was used to maintain a homogeneous solids suspension. A hot-wire ignitor was inserted into 

the vapor space of the cup through the trap door every 1o

 C and a fine wire thermocouple just above the 

liquid surface and diametrically opposed to the ignitor was used to detect whether a flash occurred. 

Reference tests on n-dodecane were conducted at the beginning of the test program. 

Results and Conclusions

The n-dodecane reference flash point of 83o

 C was found to be within acceptable limits. No flash point 

was obtained for the suspension up to a temperature of 70o

 C, at which significant refluxing 

and foaming of the liquid occurred. Based on this result is not regulated for transport as a 

combustible liquid per US DOT under 49 CFR 173.120. 

Acknowledgement

Test work was conducted by at the 

Records Retention Classification

The CRIM classification of this technical report is “Technical Information – Enduring Value”.
Third Amendment to Office Lease



 Exhibit 10.12 
 AMENDMENT #3 
 This Amendment #3 to Lease is made on November 11, 2010 between
SUNTREE GARDEN, LLC (“Lessor”) and SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION (“Lessee”). 
  

	I.	Recital: This amendment of lease is made with reference to the following facts and objectives: 


 

	 	A.	Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. a Delaware corporation (Tenant) and SUNTREE GARDEN. LLC (Landlord) are parties to that certain original lease made and entered into as of
July 28, 2009, as amended on August 1, 2009, and on October 1, 2009, relating to the Premises located in the Building at 6042 Cornerstone Court West, San Diego, CA 92121 (collectively, the “Lease”) 


 

	 	B.	The parties to the Lease desire to amend the Lease to add additional space. 


 

	 	C.	Now, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree and modify the Lease as follows:


  

	II.	Increase in premise: The premises subject to the Lease shall be increased by approximately 1,455 square feet (“Additional Space”) by including the space
directly behind the second floor space currently occupied by Lessee. 

  

	III.	The rent for the Additional Space shall be five hundred ($500.00) per month. Lessee will pay for gas and electricity charges for such Additional Space. There shall be
no common area maintenance (CAM) charge for the Additional Space. 

  

	IV.	The Lease term of the Additional Space shall be 18 months, commencing on December 1, 2010. 


 

	V.	Lessee takes the Additional Space in “as is” condition. 

  

	VI.	Effectiveness of Lease: Except as set forth in this executed Amendment #3 to the Lease, all other terms and conditions of the Lease shall continue in full force and
effect. 

 In witness thereof, the parties hereto execute this Amendments #3 on the dates indicated below: 

 

							
	Lessor	 	Lessee
		
	SUNTREE GARDEN, LLC.	 	SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation
				
	By:	 	 /s/ David Wen
	 	By:	 	 /s/ Henry Ji

	Title:	 	Managing Member	 	Title:	 	Chief Scientific Officer
	Date:	 	11/12/2010	 	Date:	 	11/12/2010
**CERTIFICATIONS***
Exhibit 31.2
I, Glen W. Fausset, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First NationalBancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and wehave:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and  c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
 a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identifiedfor the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, includingany corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.   Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ *Glen W. Fausset* Title: Chief Financial Officer