alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Appendix D

Public Notice Report,

Comments Received and Responses(This page intentionally left blank)Public Notice Report, Comments Received, and Responses 1 Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Area Appendix D 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for 8-hour Ozone April 13, 2011 

### Public Notice Report

For the Section 110(a)(1 ) Maintenance Plan

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point

1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

On February 25, 2011, a draft version of the Nort h Carolina Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Greensb oro/Winston-Salem/High Point 1-hour ozone maintenance area (referred to as the Triad area) was submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A request fo r public hearing, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102, and the public comment period were noticed in the local newspapers on Wednesday, March 2, 2011. The public comment period was open from March 2, 2011 through April 1, 2011. No request for public hearing was received and the public comment period elicited comments from

the USEPA.

Background

Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that each state adopt and submit to the USEPA a plan which provides for implementation, maintena nce and enforcement of primary standards for

all areas within the state. The USEPA stated th at a 110(a)(1) maintenance plan is required for those areas that are designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and are designated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard with an approved maintenance plan. The Triad area meets these conditions and th erefore North Carolina is required to submit a 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the area. The requ irements of the maintenance plan include an attainment emissions inventory, a maintenance de monstration with a futu re inventory year, a commitment to continue ambient air quality moni toring, a contingency plan to ensure that any

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is promptly corrected and verification of a continued attainment tracking mechanism.

Summary of Public Notice and Comment Period

The public comment period was open from March 2, 2011 through April 1, 2011. The only comments received were from the USEPA, which are attached following this report along with the NCDAQ’s response to comments. The commen ts were minor and will be addressed in the

final submittal.

Conclusions

The NCDAQ believes it has adequately addr essed the USEPA’s comments. The NCDAQ will be moving forward with the final submittal to the USEPA of the North Carolina Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hourozone standard for Greensboro/WinstonSalem/High Point 1-hour ozone maintenance area.
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.




























By:
/s/ Jennifer MagroName:
Jennifer MagroTitle:
Chief Financial Officer ofCeres Managed Futures LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
May 13, 2011
#### R. P. Workman *v.*George L. Shaffer, *Justice, etc.*

(No. 7350)

Submitted May 17, 1932.

Decided May 24, 1932.

*Bussell, Hiteshew, Adams <& Hill,*for petitioner.

*Ezra E. Hamstead,*for respondents.

Hatcher* President:

In this proceeding the petitioner seeks to prohibit prosecution under a warrant issued by a justice. The warrant charges that petitioner “did unlawfully advertise, represent and hold forth a sale of goods, wares and merchandise, and did sell and exhibit for sale goods, wares and merchandise, to-wit: goods, wares and merchandise of I. Cohen, a bankrupt, and other like goods, wares and merchandise, and did by circular, handbill, newspaper and other manner advertise such goods, wares and merchandise for sale, without first obtaining state license to carry on the business of itinerant vendor, and did not file a statement under oath with the county clerk and deposit with county clerk the sum of Five Hundred ' and no/100 ($500.00) Dollars, in violation of Chapter 11, Article 12 of the official Code of West Virginia.”

Code 1931, 11-12-85, defines an “itinerant vendor” as one who conducts a “temporary or transient business of selling goods, wares and meehandise”. Section 86 requires an itinerant vendor to apply to the clerk of, etc., for a license; section 87 requires a deposit of $500.00 to be made with the *339clerk by him; and section 90 makes it a misdemeanor for Mm to do business without a license, or without “in all other respects complying with the provisions of tMs article.” There is no averment in the warrant that the petitioner is conducting a temporary or transient business of selling merchandise. The charge that he is selling the stock of a bankrupt is not sufficient of itself to denote that the sale is temporary or transient. The warrant assumes that petitioner is an itinerant vendor but does not allege it. The jurisdiction of the justice depends on the warrant. “If there is no offense charged, then there is no jurisdiction.” *State*v. *Kindelberger,*88 W. Va. 131, 133, 106 S. E. 434. Prohibition, being a writ of right, may be invoked regardless of whether a petitioner has other remedies.

Accordingly, the writ will issue.

*Writ issued.*
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
**Certification of Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**
I, D. J. Paul E. Cowan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Inveresk Research Group, Inc.(the “Company”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the Company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s control over financial reporting; and
- 41 -

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board ofdirectors:
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.   Date: August 4, 2004    /s/ D. J. Paul E. Cowan   D. J. Paul E. Cowan Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer
- 42 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              27
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       174
<SALES>                                              2
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2
<CGS>                                                2
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (2)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       6
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Julius WHITE, Appellant.

No. ED 105200

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: March 20, 2018

Laquetta S. Ruston, 3156 Pershall Rd., Suite 112, St. Louis, MO 63136, for appellant.

Joshua Hawley, Garrick Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*718Julius White ("White") appeals from the trial court's judgment, entered after a jury found him guilty of second-degree robbery. On appeal, White argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because the State offered evidence that White stole money from Victim and bit Victim to accomplish the theft, the jury heard sufficient evidence to support White's second-degree-robbery conviction.

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).
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ambrose Wisniewski, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Erie County,

March 19, 1937.

*Victor B. Wylegala,*for the administratrix.

*Gregory U. Harmon, Corporation Counsel [Gerald J. Shields*of counsel], for the city of Buffalo.

Hart, S.

This is a claim by the city of Buffalo for a refund of moneys advanced to the deceased through a World War Veterans’ Relief Bureau of said city in the amount of $205.03, by virtue of section 129 of the Public Welfare Law.

Two industrial policies v/ere issued on the life of the deceased by the Prudential Insurance Company. Because of the intervention by the city of Buffalo the Prudential Insurance Company did not pay the proceeds of the policies under the facility of payment clause, but to the administrator of the insured’s estate.

The testimony discloses that an agreement was made at the time the policy was issued, in the presence of the insured, the agent for the Prudential Insurance Company, the insurer, and Pelagia Bromberek, to the effect that the proceeds of the policy were to be paid to the last named party, she, however, to pay therefrom the expenses of burial of the decedent insured.

These policies, therefore, were not the property of the decedent and not subject to section 129 of the Public Welfare Law. (See *Shea*v. *United States Industrial Ins. Co.,*23 App. Div. 53; *Matter of O’ Neil,*143 Misc. 69; *Tarawaski*v. *Prudential Insurance Co.,*113 id. 248.)

Claim of the city of Buffalo is, therefore, dismissed. The proceeds of the policies, minus the amount of the expense of the burial of the decedent, is the property of Pelagia Bromberek.

Let a decree enter accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael DiFilippo, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify
that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report
on Form 10-KSB of BBJ Environmental Technologies, 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 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 entitles, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and



c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



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



6. The Registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: April 14, 2004 |  | /s/    MICHAEL
DIFILIPPO                  
|                     |  | Michael DiFilippo, Chief Financial Officer
EAA Aviation Center ▪ PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903

- 3086 ▪ Ph: 920

- 426

- 4800 ▪ Fax: 920

- 426

- 6560 ▪ www.eaa.org June 9, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 400 7 th Street SW Room PL

- 400 Washington, DC 20591

- 0001

Dear Sirs:

Reference: DOT Docket FAA

- 2001

- 10876, FAA Exemption No. 6541 L , Operation of EAA’s B

17 and Spirit of St. Loui s for Historical Flight and Education Purposes.

EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an international membership of 170,000 people in more than 112 nations, EAA brings together aviation enthusiasts, p ilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to the continued growth of aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to aviation’s future. EAA programs, activities and events are known throughout the world for Preserving the heritage of aviat ion, Promoting access to flight, Protecting the right to fly, Preparing the future of aviation, and of

our Passion for aviation safety and education.

All conditions and limitation contained within this FAA exemption remain valid, as does the historic and educational flight purposes for flying the EAA B

- 17, N5017N

, and the EAA Ryan replica Spirit of St. Louis, N X211 , as authorized by the existing exemption, 6541L

. Therefore, EAA is requesting the exemption be renewed as it continues to be in the best interest of the public.

Sincerely,

Randy Hansen Government Relations Director
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Patrick T. Mooney, as Chief Executive Officer of Aphton Corporation (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 my knowledge:



|1. | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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: March 15, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    PATRICK T. MOONEY, M.D.                 
|                     |  |  |  |                                                
|                     |  |  |  | Patrick T. Mooney, M.D. Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50982 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MOISES DELGADO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-870-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Moises DelgadoLopez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the
Partnership, 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 Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management LLC,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		May 15, 2009





? 6 ?

- 5 -
MORGAN STANLEY CHARTER CAMPBELL L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)





? 84 ?

- 37 -

- 85 -
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
such period and results of operations of the Company for such period. Date: November 15, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Donald L. DenneyDonald L. DenneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Date: November 15, 2004
    And:
    /s/ William C. KurtzWilliam C. KurtzSenior Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer) 18
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief FinancialOfficer of Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarterly period ended January 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

Date:  March 17,2008

 
|   | /s/ Edward O. Irion             |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |                            |
|   | Edward O. Irion                 |
|   | * Chief Financial Officer* |

 

1

----