alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Draft Proposal CB-41 

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 Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   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/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Mechanical Commissioning Scope (CB-41) 

Objective:  Simplify and clarify the exceptions to required mechanical systems commissioning.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C408.2 as follows:

C408.2 Mechanical systems commissioning and completion requirements. Prior to passing the final 

mechanical inspection, the registered design professional shall provide evidence of mechanical systems 

commissioning and completion in accordance with this section. 

(Remainder of the section remains unchanged.)

Exceptions: The following systems are exempt the commissioning requirements: 

1. (Remains unchanged.) 

2. Systems included in Section C403.3 that serve individual dwelling units and 

sleeping units in hotels, motels, boarding houses and similar units.

Reason:  Clarification.  It is also not necessary in an exception to re‐state the topic in the parent section

to which the exception applies.  The term “sleeping unit” is defined in the code, therefore the

delineation of where such units may or may not occur is not needed and is confusing.  The intent is

regardless of the type of building in which they are located that the systems serving individual sleeping

units need not be commissioned.  The word “individual” is added so that complex central systems

serving multiple sleeping units would receive commissioning.

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven Anthony MITCHELL, Appellant.

WD 80088

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: March 27, 2018

Katharine Curry, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Robert Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Victor C. Howard, and Karen King Mitchell, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

*85Mr. Stephen Anthony Mitchell appeals a Johnson County Circuit Court conviction by a jury of receiving stolen property. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
##### 



(a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Fund, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the Report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Funds disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in the Report any change in the Funds internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Funds most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Funds internal control over
financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Funds ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Funds internal control over financial reporting.
 By: /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President and Principal Financial OfficerNovember 13, 2006
 E-3
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Arthur BOLTON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105511

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: March 27, 2018

Jay L. Kanzler, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Gregory L. Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Arthur Bolton appeals from the judgment of the trial court, entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
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 Dahua, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Younglin Du, CEO and President 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Yonglin Du

Younglin Du, CEO and President

(Principal Executive Officer)



November 16, 2007
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5419 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over the 

Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admission 

to the Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of 

a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary 

of the date of the State’s admission to the Union. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Admission Day 

5 Recognition Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVER7 SARY OF STATE’S ADMISSION TO UNION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—To honor the anniversary of each 

9 State’s admission to the Union, the Architect of the CapVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:28 May 22, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5419.IH H5419

cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5419 IH

1 itol shall fly the flag of the State over the Capitol each 

2 year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admis3 sion to the Union. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Architect of the Capitol 

6 shall fly the first flag of a State over the Capitol 

7 under this section on the first September 9 which 

8 occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

9 in honor of the anniversary of the admission of Cali10 fornia to the Union. 

11 (2) TREATMENT OF FIRST FLAG FLOWN.—The 

12 Architect shall present the first State flag flown over 

13 the Capitol under this section (as described in para14 graph (1)) to the Native Sons and Daughters of the 

15 Golden West. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
SYSCO CHARLOTTE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Parimal NAIK, Billy Adams, and Carolina Transitional Services, Inc. d/b/a Carolina Transitional Services, Defendants.

No. COA18-1037

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 20, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED IN PART. VACATED. REMANDED IN PART.
exv10w22






EXHIBIT 10.22




SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION



Annual Base Salaries



The executive officers of VCA Antech., Inc., are paid the following annual base salaries:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Title	 	Base Salary
	Robert L. Antin (1)
	 	Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer	 	$	892,320	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Arthur J. Antin (1)
	 	Chief Operating Officer & Senior Vice President	 	$	567,840	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Tomas W. Fuller (1)
	 	Chief Financial Officer, Vice President & Secretary	 	$	383,968	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Neil Tauber (1)
	 	Senior Vice President	 	$	383,968	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Josh Drake
	 	President, Antech Diagnostics	 	$	325,000	 








 




			
	(1)	 	Please refer to the employment agreements and other agreements of these executive
officers, each of which has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the other
terms and conditions of their employment.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06984

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 06984\06984_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06984\06984_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 06984\06984_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06984\06984_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06984\06984_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06984\06984_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06984\06984_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

06984\Certification Statement Plant ID 06984.pdf Plant certification statement

06984\Supplemental Documents\06984_Diagrams SI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

06984\Supplemental Documents\06984_ICR.SI.CoverPAge.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06984\Supplemental Documents\SPD-A.xlsx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1066

SHAHID AFZAAL MALIK,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 06-1562

SHAHID AFZAAL MALIK,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A93-279-949)

Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
- 2 -

Petitions dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Shanta Ramson, RAMSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Burtonsville, Maryland,

for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Francesca U. Tamami, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Shahid Afzaal Malik, a

native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks to challenge two decisions of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 06-1066, Malik

challenges the Board’s order finding that the immigration judge did

not err in denying his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility

under § 212(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(I) (2000), and for adjustment of status. We lack

jurisdiction to review any claim that the Board abused its

discretion in affirming the denial of a § 212(I) waiver, Okpa v.

INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001), and the subsequent denial

of adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) (West

2005). Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have “a

narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional

claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary

relief.” Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 2973 (2006). However, we find no merit in

Malik’s alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. 

In No. 06-1562, Malik petitions for review of a decision

of the Board denying his motion to reopen and reconsider the

Board’s initial order. To the extent Malik seeks review of the

Board’s reconsideration of its discretionary denial of relief under

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(I), we have no jurisdiction to review that denial

“dressed up as a motion to reconsider.” Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d
- 4 -

475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). As to the Board’s application of its

general precedent and regulations concerning motions to reopen and

reconsider, we hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in

denying Malik’s motion to reopen and reconsider. See INS v.

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for review in part

for lack of jurisdiction, and deny them in part. 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.

 PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART
REGENCY CENTERS ACQUISITION, LLC v. CRESCENT ACQUISTIONS, LLC

134A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 2, 2019

Mark E. Anderson, Attorney at Law, for Regency Centers Acquisitions, LLC.

Tracy S. DeMarco, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Regency Centers Acquisitions, LLC.

Kiran H. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Crescent Acquisitions, LLC.

Sara S. Ash, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Crescent Acquisitions, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of August 2019 by Plaintiff to Dismiss Appeal with Prejudice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of August 2019."
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James C. Day, Chairman and 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, that to the best of 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.



November 9, 2004                            /s/ JAMES C. DAY
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            James C. Day
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            of Noble Corporation
p.1 

OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

20) ll-F-62 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 20 of 45 
P.2 

United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY &EFKB TO: 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

P.O. BOX 37127 

WASHINGTON, D.C 20013-7127 

Anr-

•4£iC.U±/UU ^ 

•90 

•F-

- J7 

6 H -

DATE: fr/'ZMp 

NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 

TO 

/ 

: 1//-ri>. Itik ^ ^CljTJfo yW^Wa -

FROM: m — :—: ^ 

SUBJECT: <?P£R 

REMARKS: /(joft ? ^4^ /&P />€ey\ 

3V- P CjQnCUT/lA 

? & 4y, 

IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS FAX OR TROUBLE RECEIVING A FAX 

PLEASE CALL THE INDIVIDUAL FRON NHON YOU ARE RECEIVING THE FAX. 

BLACKWELL, LAUREN 

COMMINS, BILL 

DENNIS, JOHN 

DlSALVO, CAROL 

EADY, COLLETTE 

JOHNSTON, GARY 

KLIHINSKI, SHARON 

MALKIN, KAREN 

-4912 NCCLELUU0, LINDSAY 

-4631 MILLER, ABBY 

202-H8-5193 OLWELL. PEGGY 

-8936 PECK, DEBBY 

-4640 SHAFER, CRAIG 

-5886 HALKER, BILL 

-4639 WATKINS, HILNA 

-3384 WILSON, RITA 

202-208-

202-208-

202-219-

202-208-

202-208-

202-208-

202-219-

202-208-4958 

202-208-4650 

202-219-8933 

202-208-4624 

202-219-8934 

202-219-3386 

202-208-4913 

202-208-3884 
P.3 

p. 198 

... .Accordingly, the EPA believes it is appropriate for the 

permitting authority to recognize the FLM's expertise in the 

identification and evaluation of adverse effects on AQRVs. The 

FLMs have veil-established programs of monitoring and research 

devoted to evaluating the effects of air pollution on AQRVs. In 

addition, the determination of vhether identified impacts are 

adverse goes to the heart of the FLMs' responsibilities under 

their own statutes governing the Class I area (e.g.. the National 

Park Service Organic Act, the Wilderness Act). Nothwithstading 

the FLM's particular expertise, however, the permitting authority 

may call upon experts of its own choosing to evaluate the FLM's 

demonstration.
EXHIBIT
        32.1
  Written
        Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to
 18
        U.S.C.
        Section 1350,
 as
        Adopted by
 Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HouseRaising, Inc.
        (the
        "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory J.
        Wessling, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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)
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition as of September 30, 2005 and results of operations
        for
        the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of the Company and its
        subsidiaries.
   /s/
        Gregory J. Wessling
 Gregory
        J. Wessling
 Chairman
        of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
        Officer)
 
 November
        15, 2005
 
 This
        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
        Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated April 1, 2005, accompanying the financial statements included in the Annual Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp.**on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-57390, effective March 22, 2001, File No. 333-57392, effective March 22, 2001, and File No. 333-57396, effective March 22, 2001).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Houston, TexasApril 1, 2005

 

----
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3640

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Daniel McNeal, also known as * District of Minnesota.

Diamond, also known as Daddy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 1, 2008

Filed: December 4, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel McNeal pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1591, and transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual

activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Determining that he qualified as a career

offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) and that a downward departure was not warranted,

the district court1

 sentenced McNeal to a within-Guidelines-range sentence of 293
-2-

months in prison. McNeal appeals, arguing that the court did not properly consider

the nature and circumstances of his offenses or his history and characteristics.

Contrary to this argument, the record reflects that the district court made “an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” specifically addressing all

of McNeal’s proffered information in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors, and we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See Gall

v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (in reviewing sentence for abuse of

discretion, appeals court must first ensure there was no significant procedural error,

and then assess substantive reasonableness of sentence); United States v. Haack, 403

F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (listing circumstances that may warrant finding of

abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We deny McNeal’s motions to expand

the record and to file a pro se brief supplementing his counsel’s brief, see United

States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039, 1041 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).

______________________________
exv10w45






Exhibit 10.45




Director Compensation Policy



The following table sets forth the compensation payable to nonemployee directors of Lexmark
International, Inc.:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer Fee
	 	$	50,000	 
	Presiding Director Annual Retainer Fee
	 	$	10,000	 
	Annual Chair Retainer Fee – Finance and Audit Committee
	 	$	15,000	 
	Annual Chair Retainer Fee – Other Committees
	 	$	10,000	 
	Daily Board Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	2,500	 
	Committee Meeting Attendance Fees (if held other than on a Board Meeting date)
	 	 	 	 
	Finance and Audit Committee
	 	$	2,500	 
	Other Committees
	 	$	2,000	 
	Telephonic Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	750	 
	Initial Equity Award (Restricted Stock Units)
	 	$	150,000	 
	Annual Equity Award (Restricted Stock Units)
	 	$	100,000	 






Terms of Equity Awards




Initial Equity Award (Restricted Stock Units)





	 	•	 	Grant Date: Date of Election to the Board
	 
	 	•	 	Number of RSUs: Face value of award divided by the closing price of
Lexmark Class A Common Stock on the last day of the prior fiscal year,
rounded up to the nearest whole share
	 
	 	•	 	Vesting: 100% vested on the sixth anniversary of the Grant Date
	 
	 	•	 	Settlement: On termination of status as a Board member





Annual Equity Award (Restricted Stock Units)





	 	•	 	Grant Date: Annual Meeting of Stockholders
	 
	 	•	 	Number of RSUs: Face value of award divided by the closing price of
Lexmark Class A Common Stock on the Grant Date, rounded up to the nearest
whole share
	 
	 	•	 	Vesting: 100% vested on the date immediately preceding the next
Annual Meeting of Stockholders
	 
	 	•	 	Settlement: 34% on the second anniversary of the date of grant and
33% on each of the third and fourth anniversaries of the date of grant




Deferred Stock Units: Pursuant to the terms of the Lexmark International, Inc. 2005 Nonemployee
Director Stock Plan, each nonemployee director may defer his or her retainer and/or meeting fees
into Deferred Stock Units based on the fair market value of Lexmark Class A Common Stock on the
date of deferral. The Deferred Stock Units are eligible for settlement initially on June 30th in
the fifth year following the date of grant.