alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120480.eng.txt[9/6/2012 9:23:31 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0480 Focus Ready Draft 8/20/2012 ENGINEER: Avcin \ JAS PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER:

MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: appropriate chemical resistant gloves/ chemical safety goggles/ local exhaust or process enclosure ventilation/ ensure adequate ventilation. Respirator: When handling this material in a system that is not closed and this material is present in a stream at greater than 2%, use personal protective equipment equivalent to or better than the following: gloves, full face respirator with organic cartridge, spot ventilation, and Nomex uniform. Health Effects: Causes skin and eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. TLV/PEL: none established.file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120480.eng.txt[9/6/2012 9:23:31 AM] Migration to groundwater: Moderate PBT rating: P2B2T1 . Health: 1 Not Required Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORTfile:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120480.eng.txt[9/6/2012 9:23:31 AM] PMN: 12-0480 Manufacturing: Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: 90

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120480.eng.txt[9/6/2012 9:23:31 AM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0480 Use: Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: 55

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120480.eng.txt[9/6/2012 9:23:31 AM]
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEYACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Connecticut Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Hartl, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| 2.     | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and forthe period covered by the Report. |

 

|   | /s/ MICHAEL J. HARTL                                                                                                             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                                                  |   |
|   | **Michael J. Hartl Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting and financial officer) May 12, 2003** |   |

          A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Connecticut Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Connecticut Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 22, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2400 Lower Tribunal No. 19-29198

________________ 

### Edduard Prince , Appellant,
vs. 

### Grand Surfside Hotel, LLC, et al. ,

Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge. Edduard Prince, in proper person. Wilson, Elser Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP and Sergio R. Casiano, Jr., for appellee Grand Surfside Hotel, LLC. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Four Corner Opacity Exceedances and Excursion Due to Saturated Stack

Number of 

Wet Stack 

Opacity 

Exceedances*

Date(s) Duration Cause

2011 0 - -

2012 Unit 4 – 1 12/21/2012 6 minutes - false level indication is the 4S absorber. Isolation of the absorber caused high 

velocity through remaining absorbers carrying excess moisture through the stack

2013

Unit 5 – 1

Unit 4 – 1

04/05/2013

02/15/2013

18 minutes

6 minutes

- (U5) low inlet temp due to attenuation of noise to signal data for the mist eliminator 

differential pressure

-(U4) temperature measuring device failure

2014 0 - -

2015 0 - -

*The emission limit on Units 4 and 5 is 20% based on a six minute reading with an exemption of one six minute reading not exceeding 27%
Exhibit 32

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 Platina Energy Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Blair Merriam, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

	(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
		of the Securities and 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/ Blair Merriam
	Blair Merriam
	Chief Executive Officer, President
	and Chief Financial Officer

	February 14, 2006
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5220 

To direct the President to develop a policy on when an action in cyberspace 

constitutes a use of force against the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2016 

Mr. HIMES (for himself and Mr. WESTMORELAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the President to develop a policy on when an 

action in cyberspace constitutes a use of force against 

the United States, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Act of War Act 

5 of 2016’’. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5220 IH

1 SEC. 2. POLICY ON WHEN AN ACTION IN CYBERSPACE CON2 STITUTES A USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE 

3 UNITED STATES. 

4 (a) POLICY REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President 

6 shall— 

7 (1) develop a policy for determining when an 

8 action carried out in cyberspace constitutes a use of 

9 force against the United States; and 

10 (2) revise the Department of Defense Law of 

11 War Manual accordingly. 

12 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the policy re13 quired by subsection (a)(1), the President shall consider 

14 the following: 

15 (1) The ways in which the effects of a cyber at16 tack may be equivalent to the effects of an attack 

17 using conventional weapons, including with respect 

18 to physical destruction or casualties. 

19 (2) Intangible effects of significant scope, inten20 sity, or duration. 

21 (c) REPORT.— 

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall submit 

23 to the congressional defense committees the policy 

24 required by paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and a 

25 copy of the Law of War Manual revised pursuant to 

26 paragraph (2) of such subsection. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 5220 IH

1 (2) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.— 

2 In this subsection, the term ‘‘congressional defense 

3 committees’’ has the meaning given that term in sec4 tion 101(a) of title 10, United States Code. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
##### 



Genesis Microchip Inc.
Executive Bonus Plan  Fiscal Year 2007  Adopted June 10, 2006
 (1) General Purpose Plan Executive
Bonus Plan Company
 (2) Duration Bonus
Period
 (3) Eligibility CEO Eligible Executives
 (4) Bonus Pool Operating Plan
 (5) Calculation of Bonus
 (I)
    
    FINANCIAL COMPONENT. This component is based on the Companys financial
performance relative to the Operating Plan. This component will be weighted 75%
towards non-GAAP operating income and 25% towards revenue achievement. For purposes
of this calculation, non-GAAP operating income may be adjusted for unusual items (such
as mergers and acquisitions) as determined by the CEO and Chief Financial Officer, and
as approved by the Board of Directors. An Eligible Executive may earn a bonus up to
the percentage of his/her salary set forth below, depending on the Companys financial
performance relative to the Operating Plan.
 1




---



##### 



FINANCIAL COMPONENT BONUS AMOUNTS
 Operating Plan Performance
    
    
    <90%
    
    
    
    90%
    
    
    
    100%
    
    
    
    110%CEO
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    12.5
    %
    
    
    
    25
    %
    
    
    
    50
    %Sr. VP, WW Sales
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    9.375
    %
    
    
    
    18.75
    %
    
    
    
    37.5
    %Other Sr. VPs and EVP
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    6.25
    %
    
    
    
    12.5
    %
    
    
    
    25
    %All Other VPs*
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    5
    %
    
    
    
    10
    %
    
    
    
    20
    %
  MBO COMPONENT MBO
 MBO COMPONENT BONUS AMOUNTS
 Operating PlanPerformance
    
    
    <90%
    
    
    
    90%
    
    
    
    100%
    
    
    
    110%CEO
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    25
    %
    
    
    
    25
    %
    
    
    
    50
    %Sr. VP WW Sales
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    18.75
    %
    
    
    
    18.75
    %
    
    
    
    37.5
    %Sr. VPs and EVP
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    12.5
    %
    
    
    
    12.5
    %
    
    
    
    25
    %All Other VPs*
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    10
    %
    
    
    
    10
    %
    
    
    
    20
    %
 
 *
    
    Includes VPs on Executive Staff only. 2




---



##### 



(6) Plan Limitations
 TOTAL POTENTIAL BONUS AMOUNTS
 Operating PlanPerformance
    
    
    <90%
    
    
    
    90%
    
    
    
    100%
    
    
    
    110%CEO
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    37.5
    %
    
    
    
    50
    %
    
    
    
    100
    %Sr. VP WW Sales
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    28.125
    %
    
    
    
    37.5
    %
    
    
    
    75
    %Sr. VPs and EVP
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    18.75
    %
    
    
    
    25
    %
    
    
    
    50
    %Other VPs
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    
    
    15
    %
    
    
    
    20
    %
    
    
    
    40
    %
  7) Discretion of the CEO
 (8) Approval and Payments
 (9) Plan Modifications
 (10) Plan Administration; General Terms and Conditions
 3




---



##### 



4
Richard BELSKY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Michelle C. HEIM, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit
12.4  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REQUIRED BY THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Ian Cray, as Chief Financial Officer of United Biscuits Finance plc
and Regentrealm Limited, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:  (1)the accompanying Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the 53 week period ended January 3, 2004 as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.   By:
  /s/ Ian CrayChief
  Financial Officer   Date:March 30, 2004  A signed original copy of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to United Biscuits Finance plc and will be
retained by United Biscuits Finance plc and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 11 , 2020
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00476

- CR

ROLAND RAMOS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 98

- CR

- 0766

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant attempts to appeal a February 7, 2020 order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc , which sought to reform a judgment or judgments signed in 1999 . The denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order. See Sanchez v. State , 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); Everett v. State , 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, pet dism’d.); cf. Ex parte Florence , 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (relief from denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc may be sought by filing application for2

writ of mandamus).
On July 8, 2020 , this court notifi ed all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party showed , within 21 days of the letter, that the court has jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response has been filed.

T he appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
* 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 December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40155 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL VACA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1201-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Vaca-Hernandez pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) by being found in the United States, without permission, following his deportation. The district court sentenced him to serve 84 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Vaca-Hernandez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v.No. 04-40155 -2- New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), because they do not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Vaca-Hernandez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Vaca-Hernandez also argues for the first time on appeal that if Almendarez-Torres is overruled, the Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004), renders unconstitutional the district court’s calculation of his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on facts relating to his prior conviction that were neither found by ajury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted by him. VacaHernandez concedes that in addition to the obstacle posed by Almendarez-Torres , his argument regarding the effect of Blakely is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), in which this court held that Blakely does not extend to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 I, Wayne Yamamoto , certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of June 30, 2003;
  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 Annual 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 controls 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 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 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.
  
 Dated: October 13, 2003
 
 /s/Wayne Yamamoto
 Wayne Yamamoto
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 1, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00715-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.W.S., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-01-19817 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file her notice 

of appeal from the trial court’s April 20, 2021 final order. Under Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26.3, an appellate court may grant a motion for extension of 

time to file a notice of appeal if, in part, the notice of appeal is filed within fifteen 

days of the deadline prescribed by rule 26.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Because 

appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, the rule 26.1 deadline was July 19, 

2021, ninety days after the complained-of order was signed, and the deadline under 

rule 26.3 was August 3, 2021. See id. 26.1(a), 26.3. Appellant did not file her notice 

of appeal, however, until August 20th. 
 –2– 

In the extension motion, appellant acknowledges the July 19th deadline but 

asserts she did not receive notice of the final order until May 5th and therefore, the 

deadlines run from that date, not the date of the final order. Deadlines run from the 

date of notice, however, only if notice is received more than twenty days after the 

date of judgment.1

 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4); TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a). Because 

notice here was received within fifteen days, the deadlines were not altered. 

Accordingly, because the notice of appeal was not filed by August 3rd, we deny the 

extension motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d 542, 545 

(Tex. App.–Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (timely filing of notice of appeal is 

jurisdictional). 

210715F.P05 

 

1

 In no event though, may the deadlines run more than ninety days after the original judgment or 

appealable order was signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4); TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a). 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.W.S., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-21-00715-CV 

 On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-01-19817. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns, Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered September 1, 2021.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.11(b)
HORACE MANN SERVICE CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN


SCHEDULE A PARTICIPANTS






	
			
	NAME OR TITLE
	 
	EFFECTIVE DATE OF

	 
	 
	PARTICIPATION*

	 
	 
	 

	 
	TIER I PARTICIPANTS
	 

	President and CEO
	 
	May 16, 2013

	 
	 
	 

	 
	TIER II PARTICIPANTS
	 

	EVP and CFO
	 
	May 23, 2017

	EVP, Life & Retirement
	 
	March 22, 2012

	EVP, Property & Casualty
	 
	July 1, 2015

	 
	 
	 

	 
	TIER III PARTICIPANTS
	 

	SVP, Field Operations and Distribution
	 
	August 13, 2015**

	 
	 
	 

	*Subject to acceptance within 30 days of effective date of participation.

	**On April 13, 2017, the Company announced that Kelly Stacy, head of field operations, was leaving the Company effective April 21, 2017.

	Mr. Stacy’s responsibilities were absorbed by existing members of the management team.

	 
	 
	 






Last updated:  May 23, 2017