alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///G|/OA-OARM-OECA-OEI-OGC-ORD-TRI/Nguyet/OAR-2014-0557%205085.%206_12_2014%20-%20Ken%20Rand.txt [9/26/2014 9:26:51 AM] From: Ken Rand <ru.canal@gmail.com> To: OilandGas.Whitepapers Date: 6/12/2014 4:30:25 AM Subject: Propose methane emission standards

------------------------------------------- Dear Administrator McCarthy, Thank you for considering new standards to control oil and gas industry methane emissions. In order to appropriately address the effects of climate change, we have to control methane emissions in addition to addressing carbon pollution from power plants. Cutting methane leaks will also reduce emissions of dangerous toxins and particulate matter, stop waste, and conserve a valuable energy resource. Local communities and mineral owners benefit as well as the global climate. I urge you to move forward on these rules. Thank you,

Ken Rand 310 S. 3rd Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 24

- 00611

- CV

In re Quentin Goffney

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Quentin Goffney has filed a motion for suspension of the rules that, based on the relief requested, we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Surgitek,
Bristol

- Myers Corp. v. Abel , 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (explaining courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine its nature). The petition for
writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________ Edward Smith , Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justice s Smith and Theofanis
Filed: September 26, 2024
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


  Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 Annual Report of Forex 365, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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: August 19, 2009           /s/ Kevin R. Keating
                                --------------------
                                Kevin R. Keating
                                Principal Executive Officer
                                Principal Financial Officer
#  Assignment of Reporting Function Under Section 14(b) of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts (JADE) Act of 2008

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby assign to you the function conferred upon the President by section 14(b) of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts (JADE) Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-286).

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register.*

[FR Doc. E9-595

Billing code 4710-10-P
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 NuVim,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Richard
P.  Kundrat,  Chief  Financial  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.

Date: August 14, 2007

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat
-----------------------
Richard P. Kundrat
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Timmons, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 886]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered July 15, 1997, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, assault in the third degree (two counts), menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. The defendant has raised no non-frivolous issues in his supplemental *pro se*brief. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Appellant, v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, London, (AFB Syndicate Nos. 2623 and 623), Respondent.

No. ED 106566

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: December 26, 2018

Eugene J. Brockland, Jr., Brian M. Wacker, 120 S. Central Ave. Ste. 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, For Plaintiff/Appellant.

Anthony R. Behr, Andrew T. Tangaro, Joel O. Christensen, 7777 Bonhomme Ave. Ste. 1400, Clayton, MO 63105, For Defendant/Respondent.

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

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. Finding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,020] 

                    By application dated January 6, 2008, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on December 17, 2008. The Notice of Determination will soon be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of replicated CD's, VHS, DVD's, and cassette tapes did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. 

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding the customers of the subject firm and alleged that the customers might have increased imports of CD's, VHS, DVD's, and cassette tapes. 

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. 

## Conclusion 

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-649 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
www.lewistownnews.com 

April 12, 2013 

To whom it may concern: 

I am writing on behalf of the Lewistown News-Argus to express our'concems about 

the potential termination of Essential Air Service to Lewistown, Montana. 

Our newspaper has covered this issue very closely and we have spoken with many 

people and business owners who share our concerns, and believe that the loss the 

Essential Air Service would be very detrimental to our community. 

Lewistown serves as the medical and business hub for the Central Montana region, 

yet the nearest airport with commercial passenger service is more than 100 miles away. 

With no bus, train or other forms of public transportation coming into or out of our 

community, Lewistown is the exactly type of community for which the BAS program 

was designed. 

We are well aware of the fact that the number of passengers flying in and out of 

Lewistown has been very low in the past few years. We feel that is a direct result of the 

move from flying to Billings rather than Denver. Lewistown had met BAS eligibility 

requirements in the past and we believe that we would continue to meet requirements if 

the schedule and destination were changed to better accommodate local travelers. 

For the reasons mentioned above, we ask that Lewistown's eligibility in the BAS 

program not be terminated. Given sufficient time, we are confident that a plan can be 

developed which will increase our number of travelers and justify our position in the 

BAS program. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Lewistown News-Argus
#### James Crain v. George Crain.

*Replevin—Notes—■Evidence—Instructions.*

In an action of replevin by the payee of certain notes against a surety, who claimed the right to hold them until the maker should furnish security to indemnify the sureties, it is *held:*That although the evidence is conflicting, the jury were justified in finding for the defendant; and that there was no error in giving and refusing instructions.

[Opinion filed June 7, 1887.]

In error, to the Circuit Court of Jackson County; the Hon. Oliver A. Harker, Judge, presiding.

*347Messrs. B. J. McElvair, E. H. Lemer and B. M. Davis, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Hill *&*Mártir, for defendant in error.

Green, J.

This was an action in replevin by plaintiff in error, brought against defendant in error, to recover possession of two notes payable to said James Crain, signed by Ilenry McCoy, John B. Crain and said defendant. The jury found against plaintiff, who entered his motion for a new trial, which the court overruled, rendered judgment on the verdict for defendant and awarded a writ of *retorno.*Plaintiff sued out this writ of error to reverse the judgment. It is not disputed, plaintiff in error $vas named as payee in said notes; that they were signed, and when signed were placed in the hands of George W. Crain by McCoy; and that defendant refused, on demand being made, to deliver them to plaintiff; and on behalf of plaintiff it is contended, when the notes were so delivered they were his notes, and defendant so received them, and as his agent promised to deliver them to plaintiff. This is denied on behalf of defendant, who claims the notes were not placed in his hands for plaintiff, or as notes belonging to him, but that McCoy handed them to him, and they w'ere to be kept and were not to be delivered to plaintiff, until and unless McCoy furnished security to John B. Crain and defendant, indemnifying them against loss, as sureties fbr him on said notes; that such condition was not complied with by McCoy, and hence plaintiff did not become entitled to said notes. Hpon this question of fact the evidence is conflicting. The jury were justified by it, in finding as they did. The instructions given to the jury properly informed them that the law is applicable to the facts proven, and were fair and quite favorable to the plaintiff; the instructions refused were properly refused. We see no reason to disturb the verdict or reverse the judgment. It is affirmed.

*Judgment*affirmed.
----

----

| 1.  | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 31, 2011                                                                                                                              |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                              |
| /s/ Mark Gatto                                                                                                                                    |
| Mark Gatto                                                                                                                                        |
| Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-PresidentICON GP 14, LLCGeneral Partner of ICON Equipment and Corporate Infrastructure Fund Fourteen, L.P. |
#### Sheldon L. POLLACK et al., Appellants, v. David L. LADD, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.

No. 18801.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 16, 1965.

Decided April 8, 1965.

Mr. Elwood S. Kendrick, Los Angeles, Cal., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. E. EL *800Mosher, Washington, D. C., and A. Donald Stolzy, Los Angeles, Cal., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. George C. Roeming, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Danaher and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

After adverse rulings by the tribunals of the Patent Office, the appellants here asked the District Court to authorize the Commissioner to issue a patent on their application, serial No. 825, 124. Particularly involved were the appellants’ Claim 17 respecting a method of erection of a high-strength grout-filled metal-reinforced brick wall and Claim 18 describing a relatively inexpensive wall constructed in accordance with the method of Claim 17. After the *de novo*trial authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1965), the District Judge rendered an opinion pursuant to which judgment was entered for the Commissioner.

 The experienced and able trial judge concluded that each of the claims at issue was directly readable upon prior art. Our examination of the entire record has persuaded us that we are bound to affirm.

There is no question that the appellants taught an improved method of erecting a highly useful grout-filled monolithic building wall. The results in actual use were seen to be excellent, indeed the evidence showed a high degree of commercial success. Important though such factors may be in a close case, of themselves they do not establish patentability. The trial judge reasonably could have concluded that there simply was an inadequate showing of invention.

We are bound to affirm.1

1

. Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 214, 181 F.2d 280, 284 (1950); cf. L-O-F Glass Fibers Company v. Watson, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 69, 76, 228 F.2d 40, 47 (1955).
[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 41 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 8 :1 1- cr-0 04 49 -RAL-TBM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us GILBERTO SIERRA-B ORBOLLA, a.k .a. Hum

be rto Reyes-Ol ve ra, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 3 , 20 12 ) Befo re WILSON, JOR DAN and KRAVITCH, Cir cu it Ju dg es . PER CURI AM: St ep h e n U

. Bae r, co un se l fo r Gil be rto Si erra -Bo rb ol la in th is di rect cri m in al ap pe al , ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw fro m fu rth er rep res en ta ti on of th e ap pe ll an t an d fil ed

Case: 12-10415 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 1 of 2a br ie f pu rs ua nt to And er s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8, 87 S.Ct

. 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2 d 49 3 (1 96 7)

. Our in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e en ti re reco rd rev eal s th at co un se l’s

as se ss m en t of th e rel at iv e m eri t of th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t

ex am in at io n of th e en ti re reco rd rev eal s no arg ua bl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n to wit h dr aw is G R A N T E D , an d Si erra -Bo rb ol la ’s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces are
A F F IR M E D . Si erra -Bo rb ol la ’s m ot io n fo r co ur t ap po in te d c ou ns el is D E N IE D as m oo t. Fu rth er, hi s m ot io n to ap pe al hi s se nt en ce ba se d up on al le ge d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l is D E N IE D . Su ch a cl ai m , if av ai la bl e, sh ou ld be br ou gh t in a m ot io n pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5, ra th er t ha n o n d ire ct ap pe al . W e ex pr es s n o v ie w o n wha t effe ct , if an y , th e pl ea ag reem en t’s co ll at eral at ta ck waiv er wil l ha ve in a fu tu re § 22 55 pr oc eed in g. Se e W il li ams v. Uni te d St at es , 39 6 F.3 d 13 40 , 13 42 n.2 (1 1 Ci r. th 20 05 ) (d ecl in in g to ad dr es s whe th er co ll at eral at ta ck waiv er wou ld ex te nd to a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l “ in en te rin g or ne go ti at in g th e pl ea”) ; Pat el v. Uni te d St at es , 25 2 Fed

. App x. 97 0, 97 5 (1 1 C i r . 2 0 07 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (co ll at eral t h
at ta ck waiv er d id no t b ar § 22 55 ch al le ng e to “ va li di ty of . . . gui lt y pl ea”)

.

2 Case: 12-10415 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

Certifications

I, David Bennett, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Golf Two, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4.The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (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
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this 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 change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal 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 officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting , to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant`s internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: August 11, 2004



/s/ David Bennett
----------------------
David Bennett
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer