alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT



Board of Directors
Educational Management, Inc. and
Partners, Wikert and Rhude, General Partnership

        We have audited the accompanying combined balance sheets of Educational
Management, Inc. and Wikert and Rhude, general partnership, (collectively, the
"Company") as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the related combined statements
of operations, owners' equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 1996.  These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on this financial statement based on our audit.

        We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are
free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the combined financial
statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used
and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
combined financial statements presentation.  We believe that our audit of the
combined financial statements provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

        In our opinion, the combined financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the combined financial position of
Educational Management, Inc. and Wikert and Rhude, general partnership, as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the results of their combined operations and
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996,
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


                                                /s/ Winther, Stave & Co., LLP


Spencer, Iowa
April 18, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Europe, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Goldfluss, J.), rendered on March 26, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v*
      *230
      *Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Rupferman, J. P., Ross, Rassal, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
Thermal Curtain/Exclusion Net 

TWG Meeting, January 25, 2024 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2016 LTEMP Biological Opinion 

“Reclamation would pursue means of preventing the passage of deleterious invasive 

nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam. Because Glen Canyon Dam release 

temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur 

through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes 

into Glen and Grand Canyons would be evaluated. Potential options to minimize or 

eliminate passage through the turbine or bypass intakes, or minimize survival of 

nonnative fish that pass through the dam would be assessed (flows, provide cold water, 

other). While feasible options may not currently exist, technology may be developed 

during the LTEMP period that could help achieve this goal.” 

GCDAMP Invasive Fish Species Strategic Plan Below Glen Canyon Dam 

“Long-term actions should include the installation of a fish exclusion device at GCD, while midterm actions identified in the Plan include targeted flow and temperature changes at GC.” 
 • Sept 2022: Report on fish escapement options 

1. In-Reservoir Barriers 

a. Physical barrier screen 

b. In-reservoir net 

c. Air bubbles 

d. Underwater acoustic barriers 

e. Multi-stimulus barriers 

f. Carbon dioxide barriers 

g. Floating barriers 

h. Electrical barriers 

2. At Dam Options 

a. Deeper water withdrawal 

b. Turbine mortality 

c. Energy dissipating valve 

3. Downstream Removal 

a. Manual collection and removal through sorting facility 

b. Manual collection and removal through electrofishing 

• 2024: Purpose of this Appraisal Report was to 

investigate net barrier and thermal curtain. 
A 731-m-wide, 91-m-deep fish exclusion barrier net with floating surface collector at Baker Lake 
Whiskytown Reservoir Thermal Curtain 

(2,400 ft wide by ~100 ft deep) 
Whiskytown Reservoir Thermal Curtain 

(2,400 ft wide by ~100 ft deep) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Alternative 1. Fish Barrier Netting 

• Alternative 2. Partial depth exclusion curtain 

• Design considerations 

• Width: ~1,000 ft 

• Depth: Deep enough to cover epilimnion (50-200 ft) 

• Elevation: Adjustable with changing reservoir elevations 

• Canyon Wall Attachment 

• Is full exclusion possible? 

• Most fish are found near canyon wall 

• Resident populations between net location 

and dam 

• Steep canyon walls are unique. Other systems with 

exclusion nets have gently sloping shoreline 

• Track system vs series of anchors 

• Appraisal study assumed a 300 ft scribed, tracked, 

or otherwise improved connection to the canyon 

wall 

• Installation requires work above and below the 

surface 

• Others 
Preliminary Cost estimate 
Near Term Steps 

• Finalize TSC Report 

• Biofouling study to begin (S&T funded with in-kind from WAPA,NPS,PNNL) 

• Conduct Temperature and TDS modeling assess effectiveness 

• Conduct Value Planning Study on thermal curtain and/or net 
Questions? 

Preliminary 2D modeling
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell J. Reardon, 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) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and the consolidated results of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: May 20, 2003


                                                 \s\ Russell J. Reardon
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Russell J. Reardon
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
The Attorney General of Texas 

December 13, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Wm. J. Renardino 

Montgomery County Attorney 

126 Courthouse 

Conroe, Texas 77301 

Opinion No. II- 12 8 0 

Re: Whether a county has. 

authority to make expenditures 

for purpose of controlling 

hydrilla. 

Dear Mr. Benardino: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of Montgomery 

County to make expenditures for the purpose of controlling hydrilla on Lake 

Conroe. 

Hydrilla, which has been described as a “noxious aquatic weed,” 

presently infests approximately 6,000 acres of Lake Conroe, more than 25 

percent of its surface, and is spreading rapidly. The Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department, which is by statute authorized to %ontract or use the services 

of department personnel for the eradication of noxious vegetation from the 

waters of this state,” has agreed to furnish the manpower and facilities to 

treat the infestation. Parks and Wildlife Code, S 12.010. The Commissioners 

Court of Montgomery County proposes to contribute a portion of the cost of 

chemicals. You ask whether it is empowered to do so. 

It Is, of course, well established that a county has only those powers 

which have been specifically conferred upon it by the Constitution or by 

statute, or which may be necessarily implied therefrom. Canales v. L 

214 S.W.2d 451, 453 (Tex. 1946); Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1064 

1941). Lake Conroe, although located in Montgomery County, 19’ u 

control of the San Jacinto River Authority. See Acts 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 547, 

at 1212-17. Although no statute authorizesa county to control noxious 

vegetation, article 44181, V.T.C.S., empowers the commissioners court of any 

county 

to appropriate and expend money from the general 

revenues of its county for and in behalf of public 

health and sanitation within its county. 

It has been suggested that severe hydrilla infestations pose a haxard to boats, 

water skiers and swimmers. If the commissioners court factually determines 

p. SO58 
Honorable Wm. J. Benardino - Page 2 (H-1280) 

that the presence of hydrilla over a significant area within the boundaries of 

Montgomery County constitutes a threat to “public health and sanitation,” we 

believe it may contribute funds to its eradication. Resolution of the facts is, of 

course, within the commissioners court’s jurisdiction and cannot be addressed in the 

Attorney General’s opinion process. 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners Court ‘of Montgomery County may 

contribute funds to the control and eradication of hydrilla on 

Lake Conroe if it determines that its presence within the 

boundaries of the county constitutes a threat to public 

health and sanitation within the meaning of article 44181, 

V.T.C.S. 

‘APPROVEDi 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 5059
#### In the Matter of John Park, Appellant, v John A. Kapica et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 2, 2007;

decided January 9, 2007

Motion by New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Two copies of the brief may be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### Revman International Inc., Appellant, v CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc., Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 881]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered January 6, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The duty to indemnify plaintiff for its attorneys’ fees cannot be implied from the agreement, the purpose of which was to provide plaintiff with liquidity *(see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487 [1989]; *Ayala v Lockheed Martin Corp.,*22 AD3d 394 [2005]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the parties’ stipulation did not constitute an admission by defendant of any obligation to pay for the defense costs incurred by plaintiff in the adversary proceeding. In the absence of any duty, it is unnecessary to decide whether defendant was absolved of that duty because of plaintiffs alleged breach of the factoring agreement.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ben E. Traub,  Principal  Executive Officer of Xerion EcoSolutions Group Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbannes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that;

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


     (2)  information  contained in the report fairly presents,  in all material
          respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
          company.


Dated: May 12, 2004



By:

/s/ Ben Traub
--------------------------------------
Ben Traub, Principal Executive Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1857 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously 

to Major Dominic S. Gentile of the United States Army Air Forces 

for acts of valor during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself and Mr. STIVERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor 

posthumously to Major Dominic S. Gentile of the United 

States Army Air Forces for acts of valor during World 

War II. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF 

4 HONOR TO DOMINIC S. GENTILE FOR ACTS 

5 OF VALOR DURING WORLD WAR II. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find7 ings: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1857 IH

1 (1) Major Dominic S. Gentile of the United 

2 States Army Air Forces destroyed at least 30 enemy 

3 aircraft during World War II, making him one of 

4 the highest scoring fighter pilots in American history 

5 and earning him the title of ‘‘Ace of Aces’’. 

6 (2) Major Gentile was the first American fight7 er pilot to surpass Captain Eddie Rickenbacker’s 

8 WWI record of 26 enemy aircraft destroyed. 

9 (3) Major Gentile was awarded several medals 

10 in recognition of his acts of valor during World War 

11 II, including two Distinguished Service Crosses, 

12 seven Distinguished Flying Crosses, the Silver Star, 

13 the Air Medal, and received similar honors from 

14 Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, and Canada. 

15 (4) Major Gentile was born in Piqua, Ohio, and 

16 died January 23, 1951, after which he was post17 humously appointed to the rank of major. 

18 (5) Major Gentile is buried in Columbus, Ohio. 

19 Gentile Air Force Station in Kettering, Ohio, is 

20 named in his honor and he was inducted into the 

21 National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1995. 

22 (b) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding the time lim23 itations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States 

24 Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 

25 awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1857 IH

1 Armed Forces, the President is authorized to award the 

2 Medal of Honor posthumously under section 3741 of such 

3 title to former Major Dominic S. Gentile of the United 

4 States Army Air Forces for the acts of valor during World 

5 War II described in subsection (c). 

6 (c) ACTS OF VALOR DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor 

7 referred to in subsection (b) are the actions of then Major 

8 Dominic S. Gentile who, as a pilot of a P–51 Mustang 

9 in the Army’s 336th Fighter Squadron, Fourth Fighter 

10 Group, of the Eighth Air Force in Europe during World 

11 War II, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry 

12 and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond 

13 the call of duty by destroying at least 30 enemy aircraft 

14 during his service in the United States Army Air Forces. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOMMY LAWSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-02-323; CA-04-22429) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 22, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tommy Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lawson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

REINHOLD L. SANDERS, JR., and 

SANDRA Y. SANDERS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PENDLETON DIVISION 

HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF THE MIDWEST, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN,J., 

No. 2:16-cv-00791-SU 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On February 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [54], recommending that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [32] 

should be dismissed with prejudice. No objections were filed. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [54] 

as my own opinion. The Amended Complaint [32] is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this day of March, 2018. 

Chief United States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER
Exhibit
10.7


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is entered into as of May 28, 2020 (the
“Effective Date”), by and between Curtis Smith (the “Executive”) and AYRO,
Inc. (formerly Austin EV, Inc.) (the “Company”) for the purpose of amending that certain Employment
Agreement, dated as of March 8, 2018, by and between the Executive and the Company (the “Agreement”).
Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to such terms in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS,
Section 17 of the Agreement provides that it may only be amended by a written agreement among the parties; and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties mutually desire to amend the Agreement to modify the effect that certain terminations of his employment would have
on his outstanding equity awards.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 17 of the Agreement, in consideration of the mutual provisions, conditions, and covenants contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
Section 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (d) to the end of said section as
follows:


 


(d)
If the Executive’s employment is terminated upon either party’s failure to renew this Agreement or by the
Executive without Good Reason, then all of the Executive’s vested, outstanding stock options shall remain exercisable
until the earlier of (i) the end of the applicable option’s term or (ii) the date that is two (2) years following the
date of his termination of employment.


 


2.
Section 4.2(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said section in its entirety and replacing it with the
following new Section 4.2(c):


 


(c)
The treatment of any outstanding equity awards shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the LTIP and the
applicable award agreement; provided, however, all outstanding equity awards granted to the Executive pursuant to Section 3.2
hereof shall be fully and immediately vested, to the extent not previously vested, and all of his then vested, outstanding
stock options shall remain exercisable until the earlier of (i) the end of the applicable option’s term or (ii) the
date that is two (2) years following the date of his termination of employment.


 


2.
Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with the
provisions thereof.


 


[Remainder
of the Page Intentionally Left Blank;


Signature
Page Follows]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the Effective Date.


 


	 	THE
    EXECUTIVE:
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Curtis Smith
	 	Curtis
    Smith


 


	 	THE
    COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	AYRO
    Operating Company, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Rodney Keller
	 	Name:	Rodney
    Keller
	 	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer and President


 


[Signature
Page to Curtis Smith’s First Amendment to Employment Agreement]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

        STATEMENT REQUIRED BY U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of PCB Bancorp, Inc.,
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip
R. Carriger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, David LeVeau, Senior
Accounting Officer, certify that

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

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

/s/ Phillip R. Carriger
    -------------------
    Phillip R. Carriger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    5/28/03

/s/ David LeVeau
    ------------
    David LeVeau, Senior Accounting Officer
    5/28/03