alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 3:46 PM

To: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid; Stenhouse, Jeb

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Elman, Barry
Subject: a few more comments on the RE document

Hi Kevin,

Below are a few more comments on the RE documen t. I also will have for you some comments on the preamble and RIA. The major comments on the RIA, in addition to what you heard earlier today about changing the tables, will be edits on the Ch 8 uncertainty language.

RE Approach TSD: Page 3 --- Footnote 6. Change to add: “Existing and new biomass and landfill...” Page 6 --- Add section on new and existing biomass. Using the $30/MWH cost from TSD chapter 6. Provide explanation that those biomass deemed okay in the framework would come online with a $30/MWH cost. Page 8, footnote 12 --- add “fossil” in front of “generation reported in that state in 2012.”

Table 1.1 --- It is noticeable that some states have lower 2020/24/29 levels than in 2012. This should be explained in the text in more detail. Also, why are the numbers flat or nearly flat for so many states? What are the limitations to this approach? Suggest addressing these and adding a
discussion / conclusion section Table 1.7 --- provide 2020 Base case FOR EACH of those RE sectors

Table 1.8 --- as above for 2025

Table 1.9 --- as above for 2030

Table 1.10 --- add tech potential for biomass (called biopower in the NREL document) http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf Table 1.11 --- as above (called wood and wood derived fuels + other biomass in the EIA document) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
### §402g. Elimination of lands

The following-described lands are eliminated from the Bryce Canyon National Park and shall hereafter be included in and become a part of the Powell National Forest, subject to all laws and regulations applicable thereto, to wit: Section 30, township 37 south, range 3 west; section 25, unsurveyed township 37 south, range 4 west, Salt Lake meridian.

(Feb. 17, 1931, ch. 209, §2, 46 Stat. 1167.)
### §421. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 24, 1912, ch. 355, §1, 37 Stat. 442; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501, related to vacancies occurring in commissions in charge of parks. Section was restated as section 103303 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3166.
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of White Horse Resources, Inc.,
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

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

         2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 345.56 Vacation pay. Inmate workers are granted FPI vacation pay by the SOI when their continued good work performance justifies such pay, based on such criteria as quality of work, attendance and punctuality, attentiveness, and adherence to industry operating regulations. The inmate must submit a written request for vacation time, ordinarily two weeks in advance of the requested vacation time. The work supervisor must recommend to the SOI the vacation time to be taken or paid. Eligibility for vacation pay must be verified by the Business Office prior to approval by the SOI. The SOI may declare an inmate ineligible for vacation credit because of an inmate's unsatisfactory work performance during the month in which such credit was to occur. ( a ) An inmate may take accrued vacation time for visits, participation in institution programs or for other good reasons at the discretion of the SOI. Industrial managers should make every reasonable attempt to schedule an inmate worker's vacations so as not to conflict with the workforce requirements of FPI factory production schedules and Inmate Systems Management requirements.
( b ) An inmate temporarily assigned to the Industrial detail, e.g., on construction details, also earns vacation credit which he or she must take or be paid for at the end of the temporary assignment.
( c ) An inmate must take and/or be paid for vacation credit within sixty days after each annual eligibility date of the inmate's most recent date of assignment to FPI. An inmate who elects not to take vacation time must indicate this in writing. That inmate shall receive pay for the annual vacation credit in a lump sum on the regular monthly payroll. This amount is ordinarily paid within sixty days after the annual eligibility date of the inmate's most recent date of assignment to FPI. An inmate whose employment is terminated by release, reassignment, transfer, or other reasons, and who has unused vacation credit shall be paid for this credit on the monthly payroll.
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.25


THIRD AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT




This is the Third Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Contract) entered into the 3rd day of December, 2015 by and between Flanders Holding, LLC, (Seller) and Voltari Real Estate Holding, LLC (Purchaser) which Contract was amended by the First Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement on January 11, 2016 (First Amendment) and Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement on February 10, 2016 (Second Amendment)


The parties wish to amend the Contract, as amended in the First Amendment and Second Amendment as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 2.6 is amended to change the ending of the Contingency Period to June 10, 2016 or five (5) business days after Tenant acknowledges in writing that they accept the environmental conditions at the Premises as is or with an agreed upon clean up, which clean up shall be at the sole expense of Seller, which ever is sooner.




The Contract, the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, except as amended above, shall remain in full force and effect.


In witness whereof, the parties have set their hands as of the 10th day of March, 2016.




Flanders Holding, LLC, Sellers                Voltari Real Estate Holding, LLC






by: /s/ Jason Keen                           by: /s/ John Breeman              
Jason Keen, Manager                        John Breeman
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498 

 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

1 

June 4, 2015 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Weight Reduction Information Obtained for Proposed HD GHG Phase 2 Trailer Program 

FROM: Jessica Brakora, Mechanical Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division 

TO: Matthew Spears, Director, Heavy-Duty Onroad and Nonroad Center

EPA received confidential business information (CBI) from a trailer manufacturer during the 

comment period of our Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process. 

The agencies obtained permission to use this information, provided we do not reveal the company’s 

name as the source of the data. The following table lists the components and estimates of weight 

savings provided by the company. 

ORIGINAL COMPONENT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION 

WEIGHT 

REDUCTION 

(POUNDS) 

Steel wheels (8) Aluminum wheels (8) 240 

Cast iron hub and drum (4) Reconfigured cast iron hub and 

drum (4) 160 

Dual tires with steel wheels (8) Single wide-based tires with 

aluminum wheels (4) 480 

Steel upper coupler assembly Aluminum upper coupler 

assembly 430 

Steel tandem-axle suspension 

sub-frame 

Aluminum tandem-axle 

suspension sub-frame 280 

This information was used in combination with weight savings information obtained from public 

sources to create the list of weight reduction components in our proposal.

Attachments Deleted [CBI comments received November 10, 2014]
Opinion issued May 16, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00219-CR

———————————

STEVEN ANDRUE ACUNA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1525069

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Steven Andrue Acuna, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal in 

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). Although the motion 

does not contain a certificate of conference, it contains a certificate of service on 

counsel for the State, has been on file with this Court for more than ten days with no 
2

response, and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2), 

42.2(a).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.1 See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 Appellant’s notice of appeal from trial court cause number 1536202 has been 

assigned to appellate cause number 01-17-00220-CR.
#### § 524.70 Purpose and scope.

The Bureau of Prisons monitors and controls the transfer, temporary release (e.g., on writ), and community activities of certain inmates who present special needs for management. Such inmates, known as central inmate monitoring (CIM) cases, require a higher level of review which may include Central Office and/or Regional Office clearance for transfers, temporary releases, or community activities. This monitoring is not to preclude a CIM case from such activities, when the inmate is otherwise eligible, but rather is to provide protection to all concerned and to contribute to the safe and orderly operation of federal institutions.
§ 115.261 Staff and agency reporting duties. ( a ) The agency shall require all staff to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in a facility, whether or not it is part of the agency; retaliation against residents or staff who reported such an incident; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation.
( b ) Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff shall not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than to the extent necessary, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions.
( c ) Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health practitioners shall be required to report sexual abuse pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and to inform residents of the practitioner's duty to report, and the limitations of confidentiality, at the initiation of services.
( d ) If the alleged victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the agency shall report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.
( e ) The facility shall report all allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, including third-party and anonymous reports, to the facility's designated investigators.
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLV
Project No. 13741-000.FFP Missouri 9, LLC
Project No. 13748-000.Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC
Project No. 13771-000.
 The Commission has received three preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.,[1]
                    
                     for proposed projects to be located at the Army Corps of Engineers' Point Marion Lock and Dam on the Monongahela River, in Fayette and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania, and Monongahela County, West Virginia. The applications were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLV for Project No. 13741, FFP Missouri 9, LLC, for Project No. 13748, 
                    ( print page 16409)
                    and Solia 8 Hydroelectric, LLC, for Project No. 13771.[2] On March 24, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.[3]
                    
                     The priority established by this drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed application. The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing. Dated: March 15, 2011. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2010). Back to Citation
 2.
    
                         Point Marion Hydro, LLC, also filed a permit application to study the same site for Project No. 13789, which is deemed filed on May 19, 2010. Back to Citation
 3.
    
                         18 CFR 4.37 (2010). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2011-6771 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Order entered October 1 6 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00725
- CR
CRAIG LADARIUS THOMA S, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F11
- 70706
- T



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s October 6, 2014 motion to abate appeal. In the motion, counsel asserts that the clerk’s record may be incomplete and that there may be other portions of the reporter’s record not fi led. Counsel does not identify what is missing from the record. Moreover, we note that counsel has been granted two previous extensions of time, totaling sixty days, to file his brief. In neither of his previous extension requests did counsel identify a ny problems with the record. Accordingly, we DENY the October 6, 2014 motion to abate regarding the clerk’s record.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whetherappellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the tria l court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial cour t is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendat ions, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whi chever is earlier.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
-----"Andrew Shawl" <andrew.shawl@blengland.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Andrew Shawl" <andrew.shawl@blengland.com> 

Date: 07/09/2010 06:07PM 

cc: <andrew.shawl@blengland.com>, "'Keyser, Bob'" <bob.keyser@blengland.com> 

Subject: Questionnaire Extension Request 

Ms. Alicea,

Please accept the attachment to this e-mail as a request for an extension to respond to the EPA Questionnaire. 

A hard copy will follow in the US mail. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration.

Andrew Shawl, PE

B. L. England Station

900 North Shore Road

Beesley's Point, NJ 08223

phone 609 390 5113

fax 609 390 5149

cell 609 377 3269

andrew.shawl@blengland.com

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0761DO... 8/26/2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1247 

JING KAI JIANG,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A96-289-968)

Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Farah Loftus, LAW OFFICE OF FARAH LOFTUS, Los Angeles, California,

for Petitioner. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney,

John W. Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Jiang does not challenge the denial of protection under the

Convention Against Torture. Therefore, this claim is waived. See

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.

1999).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jing Kai Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s

denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture.* The Board

affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge, finding no error in

her decision that Jiang did not meet his burden of proving his

eligibility for relief. Jiang contends on appeal that his evidence

was, in fact, sufficient.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for asylum, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Jiang fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result.

Nor can Jiang show that he was entitled to withholding of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “Because the burden of

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even

though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
- 3 -

is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).

We deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Alexandria Division

In Re: )

NATHANIEL J. FERRACO, ) Adv. Proc. No. 15-01147-RGM

Debtor. ) Bankr. No. 15-12669-RGM

____________________________________)Chapter 7

)

TAMMY FERRACO, )

)

Movant, )

)

v. )

)

NATHANIEL J. FERRACO and )

DONALD F. KING, TRUSTEE, )

)

Respondents. )

CONSENT ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the agreement of Creditor Tammy Ferraco

(“Ms. Ferraco”) and the Debtor Nathaniel J. Ferraco (“Debtor”),

IT APPEARING TO THE COURT that the parties have agreed to a resolution of the

above-captioned adversary proceeding; and

IT APPEARING that the parties agree that the debt set forth below is nondischargeable

under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5) and (15) as domestic support obligations and property settlement

obligations, respectively, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Debtor shall be and hereby is denied a discharge as to his domestic

support obligations under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and property settlement obligations under 11

U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) and they are not subject to the discharge entered in the underlying bankruptcy

case no. 15-12669 on November 16, 2015 (Docket no. 59), and it is further

Case 15-01147-RGM Doc 7 Filed 01/15/16 Entered 01/15/16 16:16:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
ORDERED that the Debtor remains obligated on any obligation or payment required by the

Property, Custody, and Support Settlement Agreement dated September 11, 2013 in Ferraco v.

Ferraco, Civil Action No. 90759, in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia.

Dated: ______________________________

Robert G. Mayer

United States Bankruptcy Judge

RULE 9022-1 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9022-1, this Order has been endorsed by

all necessary parties.

/s/ Nancy D. Greene, Esq.

Nancy D. Greene, Esq.

I ASK FOR THIS:

 /s/ Nancy D. Greene, Esq.

Nancy D. Greene, Esq. VSB # 38984

GREENE LAW FIRM PLLC

3977 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 1

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 539-0333

(703) 935-4294 (facsimile)

NDG@NDGLaw.com

Counsel for Tammy Ferraco

SEEN AND NO OBJECTION:

 /s/ Nathan A. Fisher, Esq.

Nathan A. Fisher, Esq. VSB # 37161

3977 Chain Bridge Rd., Ste. 2

Fairfax, VA 22030

(703) 691-1642

(703) 691-0192 (facsimile)

Fbarsad@cs.com

Counsel for Nathaniel Ferraco

2

Case 15-01147-RGM Doc 7 Filed 01/15/16 Entered 01/15/16 16:16:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
SEEN AND NO OBJECTION:

/s/ Lauren Friend McKelvey, Esq.

Lauren Friend McKelvey, Esquire (VSB No. 78813) 

ODIN FELDMAN & PITTLEMAN PC

1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 400

Reston, Virginia 20190

Phone: 703-218-2135

Fax: 703-218-2160 

Lauren.McKelvey@ofplaw.com

Counsel for Trustee Donald F. King

Parties to receive notice:

VIA CM/ECF:

Nancy D. Greene

Nathan Fisher

Donald F. King, Trustee

3

Case 15-01147-RGM Doc 7 Filed 01/15/16 Entered 01/15/16 16:16:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3