alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Scoping Workshop Public Meeting on Plans for Developing

Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

January 24, 2007 - Washington, DC

Purpose : The Department is holding this public meeting 1) to comply with the requirement of

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 2) to obtain stakeholder input on the scope of coverage and

preliminary analyses prepared for battery chargers and external power supplies. This meeting

will provide stakeholders with an overview of the Statute, the timeline for completing the tasks

listed in the Statute, and an explanation of those tasks. To that end, DOE will provide

stakeholders with an overview of the approach and analytical tools that it proposes to use in its

determination analysis for battery chargers and external power supplies. The meeting will solicit

feedback on the assumptions, methodology and analytical tools.

9:00 - 9:05 am

9:05 - 9:15 am

9:15 - 9:45 am

9:45 - 10:15 am

10:15 - 11:00 am

11:00 - 11:15 am

11:15 - 11:30 am

11:30-12:30 pm

12:30 - 1:30 pm

1:30 - 2:20 pm

2:20 - 2:35 pm

2:35 - 3:25 pm

3:25 - 3:55 pm

3:55 - 4:00 pm

4:00 pm

Welcome

Agenda review

Stakeholder opening statements

Introduction, Regulatory Process Overview

Determination Analysis Analytical Steps

Coffee Break

Energy Conservation Standards Analyses

Scope of Coverage and Product Classes

Break for Lunch

Preliminary Market Assessment Discussion

Coffee Break

Preliminary Technology Assessment Discussion

Opportunity for Stakeholder Comment

Closing Remarks

Adjourn

 EERE-2006-DET-0136 COMMENT 17.1
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00360-CV

2008 CHEVROLET CORVETTE, 

VIN#1G1YY36W585105455 AND 

JAMES TYRON RIGGS, SR., 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 51223

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Tyron Riggs attempts to appeal the trial court’s inaction on a motion for 

default judgment in a case allegedly styled, “2008 Chevrolet Corvette, 

VIN#1G1YY36W585105455 and James Tyron Riggs, Sr. v. The State of Texas.” 

By letter dated December 8, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Riggs that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared there was no final, appealable order, 

and this Court had no jurisdiction of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2; 44.3. In the same 
2008 Chevrolet Corvette v. State Page 2

letter, the Clerk warned Riggs that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 14 days 

from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. More than 14 days have passed, and no response has been filed. 

By a separate letter also dated December 8, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified 

Riggs that, although Riggs indicated in his Docketing Statement filed on December 1, 

2023, that he did not request a Clerk’s Record, the appeal could not proceed without a 

Clerk’s Record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3 (b). In the same letter, the Clerk warned Riggs 

that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless, within 21 days from

the date of the letter, Riggs requested and made arrangements to pay for the Clerk’s 

Record and simultaneously notified this Court of his actions. Id. More than 21 days have 

passed, and we have not been notified that Riggs has requested and made arrangements 

to pay for the Clerk’s Record.

Further, by Order of the Court issued on December 8, 2023, Riggs was ordered to 

file an affidavit or declaration of previous filings and a certified copy of his inmate 

account within 21 days from the date of the order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 

14.004(a), 14.004(c), 14.006(f); Anderson v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 530 S.W.3d 150, 153

(Tex. App.—Waco 2015, no pet.). Riggs was warned that the failure to timely file these 

documents would result in the dismissal of his appeal without further notice and a 

finding that the appeal was frivolous. See Anderson, 530 S.W.3d at 153; see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. More than 21 days passed, and Riggs has not complied with the 

Chapter 14 affidavit or declaration of previous filings requirement. Accordingly, we find 

this appeal to be frivolous. See Anderson, 530 S.W.3d at 153.
2008 Chevrolet Corvette v. State Page 3

For each of the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(c), 44.3, and 37.3 (b).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith 

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 11, 2024

[CV06]
**Exhibit 32.3**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of East KansasAgri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report”), I, Mike Goblirsch,General Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Mike Goblirsch  |   |
|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | General Manager     |
|   | Dated: May 15, 2006 |

 

----
ASSIGNMENT
                             OF
        DEVELOPMENT FINANCING AND LEASING COMMITMENT

      THIS ASSIGNMENT made and entered into this 26th day of
January, 1998, by and between AEI FUND MANAGEMENT,  INC.,  a
Minnesota corporation, ("Assignor") and AEI REAL ESTATE FUND
XVIII  LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited  partnership
("Assignee");

     WITNESSETH, that:

      WHEREAS,  on  the 23rd day of January, 1998,  Assignor
entered  into a Development Financing and Leasing Commitment
("the  Commitment")  for that certain  property  located  at
Chillicothe, Ohio (the "Property") with Tumbleweed, LLC,  as
Seller/Lessee; and

     WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign an undivided forty-
five percent (45.00%) of its rights, title and interest  in,
to  and  under  the  Commitment to Assignee  as  hereinafter
provided;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar ($1.00) and other  good
and  valuable  consideration, receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged,  it is hereby agreed between  the  parties  as
follows:

     1.    Assignor  assigns all of its  rights,  title  and
     interest  in, to and under the Commitment to  Assignee,
     to  have  and  to hold the same unto the Assignee,  its
     successors and assigns;
     
     2.    Assignee  hereby  assumes all  rights,  promises,
     covenants,   conditions  and  obligations   under   the
     Commitment  to be performed by the Assignor thereunder,
     and  agrees  to be bound for all of the obligations  of
     Assignor under the Commitment.

All  other  terms  and  conditions of the  Commitment  shall
remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

AEI FUND MANAGEMENT, INC.
("Assignor")


By:  /s/ Robert P Johnson
         Robert P. Johnson, its President

AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVIII
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("Assignee")

BY: AEI FUND MANAGEMENT XVIII, INC.


By:  /s/ Robert P Johnson
         Robert P. Johnson, its President
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5296 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5296

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain energy tax 
                                credits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2006

    Mr. Davis of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain energy tax 
                                credits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Energy Enhancement Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT FOR 30 PERCENT ENERGY PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subclause (II) of section 48(a)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 30 percent energy credit) is 
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 
2016''.
    (b) Energy Property Relating to Fiber-Optic Distributed Sunlight.--
Clause (ii) of section 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code (relating to fiber-
optic distributed sunlight) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' 
and inserting ``January 1, 2016''.
    (c) Qualified Fuel Cell Property.--Subparagraph (E) of section 
48(c)(1) (relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December 
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
    (d) Qualified Microturbine Property.--Subparagraph (E) of section 
48(c)(2) (relating to termination) is amended by striking ``December 
31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.

SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT PROPERTY.

    (a) Extension.--Subsection (g) of section 25D of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
    (b) Increase in Credit Amount Allowed for Photovoltaic and Solar 
Water Heating Property.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 25D(b)(1) 
of such Code (relating to maximum credit) are amended by striking 
``$2,000'' both places it appears and inserting ``$5,000''.

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CREDITS RELATING TO GEOTHERMAL ENERGY.

    (a) Nonbusiness Geothermal Heat Pumps.--Subsection (g) of section 
25C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is 
amended by inserting ``(December 31, 2015, in the case of property 
described in subsection (d)(2)(C)(ii) (relating to geothermal heat 
pumps))'' before the period at the end.
    (b) Electricity Produced From Geothermal Energy Facility.--Section 
45(d)(4) of such Code (defining geothermal or solar energy facility) is 
amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 
2016''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary L. CUSTARD, Jr., Appellant.

WD 80692

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: August 28, 2018

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Carol D. Jansen, Assistant State Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Gary Lee Custard appeals from the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Adair County, Missouri, finding him guilty, following a jury trial, of one count of the class B felony of assault in the first degree. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Hardesty

126 (2012) (recognizing that an extraordinary writ petition was an appropriate vehicle to challenge an order that dismissed a petition alleging abuse and neglect). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. 

### Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

We have considered the petition, the answer, and the reply. Although the abuse and neglect petition was not filed within ten days after the protective custody hearing, the child was returned to his mother's care the day after the protective custody hearing. Under these circumstances, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. 

### See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that the issuance of an extraordinary writ is purely discretionary with this court). 1 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Parraguirre

' 44 - Cherry 'We take judicial notice that NRS 432B.490 wa substantively amended on May 24, 2013. 

### See A.B. 174, 77th Leg. (Nev. 2013).

2 In light of our decision in this matter, we deny petitioner's motion for a stay, and we vacate the temporary stay imposed by our February 8, 2013, order. We further deny petitioner's motion to strike the answer.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2

### cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey Todd, Chief Executive Officer of Kore Nutrition
Incorporated, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kore Nutrition
      Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Kore Nutrition Incorporated.                                                              

Dated: April 15, 2011

| | /s/Jeffrey
    Todd                       
| | ------------------------------------------
| | Jeffrey
      Todd                        
| | President and Chief Financial Officer     
| | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
| | Financial Officer)                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kore Nutrition
Incorporated and will be retained by Kore Nutrition Incorporated and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge: (a)
     the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(b)
     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and theresults of operations of the Fund for such period.
  Date: August 9, 2010 /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amendment No. 3 to Pension Restoration Plan



 Exhibit (10)(t) 
 Amendment No. 3 
 to 
 The First American Corporation 
 Pension Restoration Plan 
 (Effective as of January 1, 1994) 

The following amendments are hereby made to The First American Corporation Pension Restoration Plan (“Plan”): 
  

	1.	Effective as of April 30, 2008, the following sentence is added to the end of Plan section 1.3, relating to the application of the Plan:


 “Notwithstanding any other Plan provision, no additional benefit shall be accrued by any Participant under
the Plan after April 30, 2008.” 
  

	2.	Effective as of April 30, 2008, the following sentence is added to the end of Plan section 3.1, relating to the Restoration of Benefit:


 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Participant will earn any Benefit Service towards his Restoration
Benefit for any period after April 30, 2008.” 
  

	3.	Effective as of April 30, 2008, the following sentence is added to the end of Plan section 4.1, relating to Retirement Benefits: 

 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, in computing the Participant’s Restoration Benefit such Restoration Benefit
shall not include any accruals for Benefit Service for any Participant attributable to periods after April 30, 2008.” 
  

	4.	Except as amended above, the Plan as in effect prior to this amendment shall continue unchanged. 

 * * * * * * * * * * 
 In Witness Whereof, The First American
Corporation caused its duly authorized officer to execute this Plan Amendment on this 21 day of April, 2008. 
  

			
	The First American Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kelly J. Dunmore

		
	Its:	 	 Vice President, Employee Benefits



  

 1
Anthony PEOPLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105755

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: August 14, 2018

Randall Brachman, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.

Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr. J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Peoples ("Movant") was charged with Count I of unlawful possession of a firearm, pursuant to § 571.070, and Count II of unlawful use of a weapon, pursuant to § 571.030, in Cause No. 1522-CR03444-01. Movant pleaded guilty to *891both counts on October 26, 2015. Movant was sentenced to a term of fifteen years of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections on Count I and seven years of imprisonment on Count II, to run consecutively for a total of twenty-two years of imprisonment. Execution of Movant's sentence was suspended until his probation was revoked on October 17, 2016. Movant alleges in his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion that he only pleaded guilty because his plea counsel affirmatively misinformed him that "he would get probation on both charges with a total backup sentence of seven years." After reviewing the record, we find that it directly refutes Movant's claim, and any mistaken belief by Movant at the time he pleaded guilty would be unreasonable. Accordingly, Movant has failed to allege facts that, if true, would warrant relief, and he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the motion court's denial of Movant's post-conviction motion.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
ROSSI DEJOUR ARMSTEAD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D13-4728

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 28, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed appellant’s sentences based on our en banc decision 

in Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Walton I), where this 

court held that “any mandatory minimum term required by section 775.087(2) –

whether the defendant fires a gun, or only carries or displays it – shall be imposed 
2

consecutively to any other term imposed for any other felony.” However, the 

Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision in this case and remanded for 

reconsideration in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 

2016) (Walton II), and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016). 

In Williams, the supreme court said that “consecutive sentencing of 

mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is 

impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm 

was merely possessed but not discharged.” 186 So. 3d at 993; accord Walton II, 

208 So. 3d at 64. However, Williams distinguished between consecutive sentences 

imposed for two “qualifying felonies” pursuant to the 10-20-Life statute as 

codified in section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2012), and consecutive sentences 

imposed for “qualifying felonies” and “non-qualifying felonies.” Williams, 186 So. 

3d at 992. The supreme court noted that the 10-20-Life statute “expressly mandates 

. . . that a qualifying felony sentence run ‘consecutively to’ any sentence imposed 

for a non-qualifying felony.” Id.

Here, appellant was convicted of (1) principal to home invasion robbery 

with a firearm; (2) principal to kidnapping; and (3) principal to grand theft of a 

motor vehicle. Though both robbery and kidnapping may be qualifying offenses 

pursuant to the 10-20-Life statute, in the current case, the State charged appellant 

pursuant to the 10-20-Life statute only on the home invasion robbery count. § 
3

775.087(2)(a)1g, Fla. Stat. The kidnapping in appellant’s case, then, was 

considered a “non-qualifying offense.” Martin v. State, 190 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2016). Thus, pursuant to Williams, because appellant was convicted of 

one “qualifying felony” and two “non-qualifying felonies,” the trial court would 

have been required to run the sentences consecutively.

Here, the trial court properly ordered the sentences to run consecutively. We, 

therefore, affirm. See Martin, 190 So. 3d at 255.

WOLF, MAKAR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 99.1 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer


                        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 EZ Travel, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Edward C. Zimmerman, III, Chief Executive Officer (or Chief Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

        (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/ Edward C. Zimmerman, III
-----------------------------
    Edward C. Zimmerman, III
    Chief Executive Officer


Date  October 10, 2002
      ------------------


<PAGE>