alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2012   | By:    | /s/ Alexander Lee          |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Alexander Lee,                  |   |
|                             |   | Interim Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                             |   |                            |   |
Preliminary Reclamation FY1

Triennial Workplan and BudgTechnical Work Group April 20, 2017 

Katrina Grantz Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 
Where are we in the TWP Proce

FY 17 • Heavy lifting, the 

FY18-20 TWP – initial DOI discussion, before going to stakeholders 

FY 18 • Some work to do, 

we need to changanything for FY19

FY 19 • Some work to do, do 

we need to changeanything for FY20? 

FY 20 • Heavy lifting, deve

the FY 21-23 TWP 

2 
GCDAMP Budget FY17 and FY

GCDAMP Budget Power Revenues

FY 17 = $10,916,000 (1.5% CPI) 

Reclamation = $2,110,000 GCMRC = $8,806,000 

* Assumes 1% CPI for FY 2018

3 
Reclamation 

AMWG Program Manageme

4 
Reclamation 

TWG Program Managemen

5 
Reclamation 

Admin, ESA Compliance, 

Management actions 

6 
GCDAMP Budget FY 18-20 

Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund 

“The goal of this budget item is to ensure that fundavailable for nonnative fish control in the event this conservation action is needed for endangered humchub.” Balance at beginning of FY 16: ~$1,000,000 projected balance at end of FY 17: ~$1,500,000 

7 
Reclamation - Cultural Resour

8 
Reclamation - Total 

* Note that initial workplan is over budget
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">1590 Lexington LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>1590 Corp. d/b/a All Washed Up, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord, as limited by its brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered January 26, 2016, which denied its motion to strike certain affirmative defenses and counterclaims in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered January 26, 2016, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and landlord's motion to strike the first, second, fifth and seventh through eleventh affirmative defenses, and first through fourth counterclaims, is granted.</p><p>Civil Court should have granted landlord's motion to dismiss the commercial tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The written rent demand satisfied the requirements of RPAPL ยง 711(2) by affording tenant notice of the alleged amount due and the period for which such claim was made (<i>see Brusco v Miller</i>, 167 Misc 2d 54 [1995]). Furthermore, the building was constructed prior to 1929 and was thus exempt from certificate of occupancy requirements (<i>see</i> Multiple Dwelling Law ยง 301[1], [2]).</p><p>Tenant waived its objections to service of the notice of petition and petition by asserting counterclaims unrelated to landlord's claim for rent (<i>see Textile Tech. Exch. v Davis</i>, 81 NY2d 56, 58-9 [1993]). Nor was landlord's claim for rent barred by the doctrines of laches, unclean hands, waiver and/or estoppel, which were pleaded as bare legal conclusions without any factual basis (<i>see Robbins v Growney</i>, 229 AD2d 356 [1996]).</p><p>The defense/counterclaim for an abatement based on constructive or actual eviction from the subject premises as a result of a vacate order issued by the New York City Department of Buildings is without merit. The "partial" vacate order encompassed residential apartments located on the fourth, fifth and sixth floors, several floors above tenant's ground floor space, and did not require tenant to vacate the building. Nor did tenant allege any abandonment of the leased premises.</p><p>Finally, the second counterclaim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment is also without merit. Landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment was made in consideration of the tenant's covenant to pay rent, and the tenant cannot recover damages for an eviction, based upon a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, if the tenant has failed to pay rent (<i>see Dave Herstein Co. v Columbia Pictures Corp</i>., 4 NY2d 117, 121 [1958]; 2 Dolan, Rasch's Landlord and Tenant โ�� <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Summary Proceedings ยง 27:5 at 315 [4th ed 1998]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 14, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### BEDELL v. NORTH SIDE PUB. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1896.)

Action by Elizabeth W. Bedell against the North Side Publishing Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs, in order that the appellant may move before the court below to have his default opened, and his case regularly signed and filed.
Exhibit
32.1





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 Annual Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Terry Copeland, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:





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





(b)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








By: /s/  Terry
Copeland


Terry
Copeland


President
and Chief Executive Officer


March 12,
2010
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

Incorporated in the Cayman Islands 

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. 
 This is to
certify that is / are the registered shareholders of: 
  

					
	 No. of Shares
	  	Type of Share	  	Par Value
		  	Class A Ordinary Shares	  	US$0.00001
			
	 Date of Record
	  	Certificate Number	  	% Paid

 The above shares are subject to Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and transferable in accordance therewith.


                          
                                         
                     Director                  
                                         
                                         
                                Director / Secretary
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,2.91418
#### Lewis *et al.,*Respondents, v. Douglass, Sheriff, Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 6 N. Y. Supp. 888.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 611 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES J’MORI JONES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00198

- WO

- 1; 1:16

- cv 00076

- WO

- JLW )

Submitted : May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. James J’Mori Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James J’Mori Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012) motion. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constit utional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims i s debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural rul ing is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we den y Jones’ motion for transcript at government
expense, deny 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 this court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Grady Rodriquas BRYE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY FOR the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Attorney General of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-11899

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 29, 2007.

Grady Rodriquas Brye, Bonifay, FL, pro se.

Before BIRCH, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Grady Rodriquas Brye, a Florida prisoner proceeding *pro se,*appeals the *sua sponte*dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*in accord with Rule 1.03(e) of the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. We granted a Certificate of Appealability on the limited question “[wjhether the district court properly dismissed the *pro se*habeas petition without first giving Brye notice and opportunity to pay the filing fee or file the required documentation.”

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court is authorized to dismiss an action for failure to comply with local rules, *Kilgo v. Ricks,*983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir.1993), and the district court may exercise that power *sua sponte, see Pond v. Braniff Airways, Inc.,*453 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir.1972). We review the order of a district court that dismisses an action for failure to comply with a local rule for abuse of discretion. *Kilgo,*983 F.2d at 192.

We have held that the district court should not dismiss the action of a *pro se*
      *844plaintiff based on a local rale when “there is nothing to indicate [the] plaintiff ever was made aware of it prior to dismissal.” *Mitchell v. Inman,*682 F.2d 886, 887 (11th Cir.1982) (vacating the dismissal of a *pro se*plaintiffs complaint for failure to comply with Local Rule 91.2 of the Northern District of Georgia). In accordance with that precedent, the district court should not have dismissed Brye’s petition. The record does not establish that Brye had knowledge of the requirements of Rule 1.03(e) before the district court dismissed his petition.

Although Brye filed a motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*with his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus, there is no evidence that Brye was aware of Rule 1.03 or the consequences of failing to file that motion with his petition. To the contrary, it appears from the record, that Brye believed that, because his motion for leave to proceed *informa pauper-is*with respect to his initial petition had been granted, he was not required to obtain permission to proceed *in forma pauperis*with respect to his second petition. In the light of Brye’s *pro se*status, the district court should have determined that Brye was aware of the requirements of Rule 1.03(e) and the consequences of noncompliance before *sua sponte*dismissing Brye’s petition. The district court abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition without giving Brye notice of the rule and allowing him an opportunity to comply. *See Mitchell,*682 F.2d at 887-88; *Moore v. Fla.,*703 F.2d 516, 520 (11th Cir.1983).

The order dismissing Brye’s complaint is VACATED and the petition is REMANDED for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the
undersigned  officers  of the  registrant  certifies,  to the best of his or her
knowledge,  that: (a) the  registrant's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a) or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934;  and (b) the
information  contained  in the  Form  10-K,  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



DATE: March 28, 2003                By: /s/ Nagarjun Valluripalli
                                       ------------------------------------
                                    Nagarjun Valluripalli
                                    Chairman of the Board, President and
                                    Chief Executive Officer




DATE: March 28, 2003                By: /s/ Nicholas Visco
                                       ------------------------------------
                                    Nicholas Visco
                                    Senior Vice President-Finance and
                                    Administration
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          89,885
<SECURITIES>                                    53,554
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,627
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,538
<PP&E>                                          23,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,572
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,293
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,108
<CGS>                                              618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,270)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,651
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,767)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,884
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,884
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DIVERSIONS TO SALT LAKE AQUEDUCTLatitude: 40.405Longitude: -111.53Elevation: 5295

DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DIVERSIONS TO SALT LAKE AQUEDUCT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Peak Site Page...



Wolf Creek Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Atwater Site Page...



Atwater

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beaver Divide Site Page...



Beaver Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brighton Site Page...



Brighton

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Daniels-Strawberry Site Page...



Daniels-Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thaynes Canyon Site Page...



Thaynes Canyon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trial Lake Site Page...



Trial Lake
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130544 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130544 

 COA: 266811 

Jackson CC: 03-000766-FH 

DEBORAH ANN FINLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
#### Robert Hamill et al., Respondents, v Elmwood Park Homeowners Association, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 893]

In an action, inter alia, to compel an election of the board of directors of the defendant Elmwood Park Homeowners Association, Inc., to be conducted in accordance with articles VII and VIII of its bylaws, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated February 17, 2011, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment compelling the rescheduling of an election meeting to be conducted in accordance with articles VII and VIII of the bylaws of the Elmwood Park Homeowners Association, Inc., and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated June 29, 2011, as upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to the original determination granting the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for summary judgment, and denied their motion for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 17, 2011, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 29, 2011, made, in effect, upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 29, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

Upon, in effect, granting reargument, the Supreme Court *1010properly adhered to its determination granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment compelling the rescheduling of an election meeting to be conducted in accordance with articles VII and VIII of the bylaws of the Elmwood Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter the EPHOA).

The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the EPHOA bylaws were never properly amended to change the procedure for electing its board of directors. Bylaws cannot be amended to effect a change in the composition of the board of directors without complying with the requirements established by those bylaws *(see Model, Roland & Co. v Industrial Acoustics Co.,*16 NY2d 703 [1965]; *Matter of Stile v Antico,*272 AD2d 403 [2000]). As the bylaws are clear, they must be followed unless properly amended *(see Murphy v State of New York,*14 AD3d 127, 133 [2004]).

In opposition, the EPHOA and the defendant Staten Island Condo Management Corp. failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the bylaws were properly amended pursuant to the article XIII requirement of a three-fourths majority vote of each class of membership at a duly called meeting of EPHOA members. The custom and practice of the EPHOA hoard is not sufficient to override the bylaws *(see Matter of Stile v Antico,*272 AD2d at 403).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 report; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2012    | By:    | /s/ Stephen B. Huang |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   | Stephen B. Huang,         |   |
|                                   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |   |
|                                   |   |                      |   |