alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
tinitcd ~tatcs ~cnatc 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

Envirornnental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Room !lOlA 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCmthy: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

March 20, 2015 

We write to address the collection of specific data gathered by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), which has led to artificially low national emissions standards for its proposed 

Clay MACT rule, NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. 

We strongly urge the EPA to revise the proposed rule using the best available data collection 

methods. As cunently written, tltis nanow rule disproportionately affects one of the largest U.S. 

manufacturers of ceramic sanitm·yware and clay ceramics with facilities in South Carolina, 

Wisconsin, and Texas. This rule could lead to significant, burdensome, and unnecessary cost 

increases for these facilities and ultimately negatively impact jobs and wages in our respective 

states. 

It is our opi1tion that the national emissions baseline in EPA's proposed rule is grounded on 

misleading test data fi·om a wet scmbber emissions control device installed on a new tUJmel kiln 

at a manufacturing facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The device was installed in 2005 to 

comply with the Clay MACT rule that was subsequently vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia in 2007. Following the vacancy of the Clay MACT rule, the 

Spartanburg, SC facility permanently shut down the wet scrubber and continued to operate the 

tl.Jrnlel kiln under the terms of the air permit. 

The Spartanburg facility did not use the control device again until ordered to do so by EPA in 

August 2010 for the purpose of collecting emissions data to determine national emission 

standards for a new "existing source" Clay MACT rule. The Spartanburg facility-under threat 

of an EPA enforcement action-complied with EPA's demands and tt1rned on the idle wet 

scrubber, which is not required by any permit. 

As a result ofEPA's demand, the scrubber was operated for approximately one week in August 

2010 for emissions testing, and then turned off again. It has not been operated since, clearly 

exempting it as an "existing source." EPA should have allowed the company to test the kiln 

without the control device as an "existing source," since that was how the kiln was permitted and 

operated and continues to operate to this day. 
EPA's use of emissions data from a defunct control device that was not listed in any air permit, 

not required by any rule, and had not been operated in approximately 18 months is an 

inappropriate approach to rulemaking. 

When EPA is issuing regulatory actions, it is incumbent upon the Agency to consider appropriate 

data in setting a regulatory floor for emissions. EPA should be using the best available data in 

any proposed rule and their proposed Clay MACT rule is no exception. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to tllis matter and we look forward to your response as well 

as seeing our requested changes reflected in the proposed rule. 

Sincerely, 

United States Senator United 

RonJohnson 

States 

~--- Senator
No. 09-9117.

#### Rashan Williams, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

559 U.S. 1075, 130 S. Ct. 2107,

176 L. Ed. 2d 736,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3300.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 462.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00035

- CV

Carol OCHSE and William W. Ochse, III, individually and as trustee of the William W. Ochse III Family 2008 Trust, Appellants

v.

Cynthia Cadwallader OCHSE

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 00062

Honorable C athleen M. Stryker , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellants.

SIGNED November 18, 2020.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
CHARLESTON.

#### State v. Jones.

Submitted February 15, 1916.

Decided February 22, 1916.

1. Criminal *Law*— Writ *of Error*— Presentation *for Review*— Rulings *on Evidence*— Bill *of Exceptions.*

Eulings of the trial court on the admissibility of evidence will not be considered on writ of erroT, unless the evidence admitted or *636rejected is made part of the record by special bills of exception or assigned as cause for a new trial on motion therefor, although all the evidence is made part of the record by a general bill of exceptions. (p. 636).

8. *SAME'*— Refusal *of Instruction Covered.*

An instruction, though correct in principle, is properly refused, where its subject matter is fully covered by other instructions given in the case. (p. 636).

Error to Circuit Court, Tucker County.

Herbert Jones was convicted of an attempt to' commit rape, and brings error.

*Affirmed.*

*A. R. Stallings*and *L. Hansford,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. A. Lilly,*Attorney General, and *John B. Morrison*and *J. E. Brown,*Assistant Attorneys General, for tbe State.

LYNCH, Judge:

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to two years’ confinement in the penitentiary for an attempt to commit a rape, upon an indictment charging him with actual rape. He assigns as erroneous the admission of record evidence of a former conviction for a similar offense, the rejection of evidence affecting the chastity of the prosecutrix, and misdirection of the trial jury.

The rulings on evidence we can not consider. They were not made the subject of separate bills of exception, nor embodied in the motion for a new trial. Either course would have sufficed. The omission of both is fatal, notwithstanding all the testimony was made part of the record by a general bill of exceptions. Repeated decisions of this court upon the necessity of such procedure, and the consequences of failure to observe it, seem to render superfluous citation of the cases. But see *State*v. *Henaghan,*73 W. Va. 706; *Railroad*v. *Brown,*74 W. Va. 159; *Stewart*v. *Parr,*74 W. Va. 327.

Though correct in principle, instruction number 9 refused and number six given substantially state the same general legal proposition. But the former is erroneous in saying the only evidence of guilt was testimony of the prosecutrix. *637Other facts and circumstances corroborative of her testimony appear in the record before ns.

As the proof, though meager, sufficiently showed guilt, the court did not err in entering judgment on the verdict of the jury: AYherefore the judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.1



               CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 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 on Form 10-QSB of Weston Technologies
Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yin Sen
Wong, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  November 25, 2004


By: /s/ Yin Sen Wong
---------------------------
Yin Sen Wong, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Minden Bancorp,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Becky T. Harrell, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
            15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


                                                /s/ Becky T. Harrell
                                                Name: Becky T. Harrell
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date:    May 12, 2006

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has  been  provided  to  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  and will be
retained by Minden  Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       24
EXHIBIT 10.41



 Exhibit 10.41 

Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary 
 MCG Capital Corporation’s (the “Company’s”) non-employee directors are currently: (i) A. Hugh Ewing, III; (ii) Kim D. Kelly; (iii) Wallace B. Millner, III;
(iv) Richard W. Neu; (v) Kenneth J. O’Keefe; and (vi) Gavin Saitowitz. The compensation structure for the Company’s non-employee directors is as follows: 
 AWARD OF RESTRICTED STOCK UPON APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION 

The SEC has granted an order authorizing us to award restricted shares of our common stock to our non-employee directors. Under the
Amended and Restated 2006 Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan, which we refer to as the 2006 Director Plan, non-employee directors each receive an award of 7,500 shares of restricted stock at the beginning of each three-year term of service
on our board of directors. Forfeiture provisions lapse as to one-third of the awarded shares each year over the three-year term. Awards of restricted stock under the 2006 Director Plan are automatic and may not be changed without further approval
from the SEC. 
 PAYMENT OF RETAINER FEE; CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE FEES; REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL AND OTHER EXPENSES 

During the year ended December 31, 2010, each non-employee director received an annual retainer of $85,000 for his or her service on
our board of directors. Additional amounts were paid as follows: 
  

			
	Position	  	Additional Fees
		
	 Non-Employee Chairman of the Board
	  	    $15,000
		
	 Audit Committee and Investment and Valuation Committee Chairs
	  	    $15,000
		
	 Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairs
	  	    $10,000
		
	 Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Investment and Valuation Committee
Members (in addition to fees paid for service as Non-Employee Chairman of the Board for service as Committee chairs)
	  	    $10,000/Committee


All retainer amounts were paid quarterly during Fiscal 2010 in arrears. Non-employee directors also received reimbursement for reasonable
travel and other expenses in connection with attending meetings of our board of directors during Fiscal 2010.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NOS. CAAP-23-0000362 and CAAP-23-0000424

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

BEVERLY GANNON; HALI IMAILE STORE, INC.,

dba HALI IMAILE GENERAL STORE and CELEBRATIONS CATERING; and

MR. TUTTLE, LLC, dba GANNON'S, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

GREGORY ZAMORA and SEVEN AROMAZ, INC., dba TOTAL FOOD SOLUTIONS,

Defendants-Appellants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 2CCV-22-0000145)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the November 6, 2023 Stipulations

for Dismissal With Prejudice of All Claims and Parties

(Stipulations for Dismissal) respectively filed in CAAP-23-

0000362 and CAAP-23-0000424 by Defendants-Appellants Gregory

Zamora and Seven Aromaz Inc. dba Total Food Solutions, the papers

in support, and the record, it appears that: (1) the appeals in

CAAP-23-0000362 and CAAP-23-0000424 are consolidated under CAAP23-0000424; (2) the appeal has been docketed; (3) the parties

stipulate to dismiss the consolidated appeal and bear their own

attorneys' fees and costs on appeal; (4) the stipulation is dated

and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal;

and (5) dismissal is authorized by Hawai i Rules of Appellate

Procedure Rule 42(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation

for Dismissal filed in case number CAAP-23-0000424 is approved

and the consolidated appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear

their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal. 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000362

01-DEC-2023

07:58 AM

Dkt. 49 OAWST
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation for

Dismissal filed in case number CAAP-23-0000362 is dismissed as

moot. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 1, 2023.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge

2
**Exhibit 31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURUSANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
 
 I, Bruce L. Hollander, the President and CEO, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bio-Lok International Inc.; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, nor misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 
 4.
The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for the establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 c)
disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
 b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and 
 ****Date: January 24, 2005

/s/ Bruce L. Hollander, President & CEOSignature and Title18
exhibit_10-18.htm























February 28, 2011







WestMountain Index Advisor, Inc.


123 North College Ave Suite 200


Fort Collins, Colorado 80524












Attention:  Board of Directors







Dear Mr. Schifrin:







I hereby resign as President and Chief Executive Officer of WestMountain Index Advisor, Inc. (the “Company”), effective immediately.  Furthermore, I resign as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company effective only and immediately upon compliance by the Company with the provisions of Section 14(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14f-1 promulgated thereunder.







This resignation is not the result of a disagreement with management regarding the operations, policies or practices of the Company.







Sincerely yours,







/s/ Brian Klemsz


Brian L. Klemsz
Walter GRIFFITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105488

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

FILED: June 5, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Gwenda R. Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Karen L. Kramer, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Walter Griffith appeals from the judgment of the circuit court denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. 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 84.16(b).
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-24340) of FMS Financial  Corporation of our report
dated March 24, 2006 relating to the financial statements,  which appears in the
Annual Report to  Shareholders,  which is  incorporated in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
March 24, 2006 which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, NY
March 28, 2006
exv4wew4






Exhibit 4(e)(4)




SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE




TO INDENTURE DATED AUGUST 17, 2006



     THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of January 12, 2009, is delivered pursuant to Section
4.17 of the Indenture dated as of August 17, 2006 (as heretofore or hereafter modified and
supplemented and in effect from time to time, the “2006 Indenture”) among LAMAR MEDIA
CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Guarantors party thereto, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. as Trustee (the “Trustee”). All terms used herein without definition
having the meanings ascribed to them in the 2006 Indenture.



     The undersigned hereby agrees that:



     1. It is a Guarantor under the 2006 Indenture with all of the rights and obligations of the
Guarantors thereunder.



     2. It has granted, ratified and confirmed, in the form and substance of Exhibit B to the 2006
Indenture, the Guarantee provided for by Article 10 of the 2006 Indenture.



     3. It hereby represents and warrants that the representations and warranties set forth in the
2006 Indenture, to the extent relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on and as of
the date hereof.



     4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the 2006 Indenture should be
delivered to the undersigned at the following address:


Keith A. Istre

Executive Vice-President and

Chief Financial Officer

Lamar Media Corp. and its Subsidiaries

5551 Corporate Blvd., Ste. 2A

Baton Rouge, LA 70808




     5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any counterpart of the 2006
Indenture.



     6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
internal laws of the State of New York.



1









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Supplemental Indenture to be duly
executed as of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Guarantor:



Pennsylvania Logos, LLC, a

Pennsylvania limited liability company



By: Its Managing Member,

Interstate Logos, L.L.C., a Louisiana

limited liability company



By: Its Managing Member,

Lamar Media Corp., a Delaware

corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Keith A. Istre
 	 
	 	 	Keith A. Istre, Executive Vice-President/ 	 
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ James R. McIlwain
 	 	 
	 	James R. McIlwain, Secretary 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	Accepted:



THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST

COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Christie Leppert
 	 	 
	 	Title: Assistant Vice President 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




2
#### Henry Smith, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 26, 1928.

*F.*W. *Marsh,*Attorney for Plaintiff in Error;'

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *II. E. Carter,*Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant in Error.

Terrell, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted and tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Escambia County. By writ of error he comes here challenging his conviction. The main question brought up for our consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The evidence was circum*822stantial. We do not think it meets the circumstantial evidence rule prescribed' by this Court in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 Sou. 246 and eases there cited, so the judgment below is reversed and a new trial awarded.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
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 on Form 10-Q of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc. (the Company) for the interim period ended August 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Chew, 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, as amended; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



October 17, 2011



/s/ Harry Chew

Harry Chew

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)





1
STATE v. Jennifer JIMENEZ/April Myers

22P19-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

April Myers, for Jimenez, Jennifer.

Craig Blitzer, District Attorney, for State.

*159The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of April 2019 by Defendant to Proceed as Indigent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."