alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

JAN a5 lOla

REPLY TO THE ArTENTION OF:

AT-18J

Jim Ross

Manager

Division of Air Pollution Control

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springtield, Illinois 62794-9276

.----:r;..-..-; Dear~

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 has reviewed 'Illinois

Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan-2010'. We have approved the network plans for the

criteria pollutants and tine particulate network. EPA, Region 5 believes the proposed network

meets all the current monitoring requirements as ofJuly I, 2009 for the criteria pollutants. This

review does not include the proposed lead network and the Neore site; they will be reviewed in

separate letters.

EPA, Region 5 agrees that the ozone data collected at site 17-031-0042 (Chicago Sears

Tower) can not be used for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

due to the placement of the probe. We also note that none ofthe continuous PM2.5 monitors are

Federal Equivalent Methods thus the data collected by these instruments can not be used for

NAAQS comparison. We would like to advise you Region 5 is using 2006-2008 design value

data to determine whether a site must do daily PM2.5 sampling so there should be no changes to

the samplers required to sample on a daily schedule. This is a departure from what we did in the

past, but it is required for consistency throughout the ten EPA Regions.

The Region would also like to note the NAAQS and monitoring requirements for ozone,

nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide are currently under review. The tinalized changes for these

pollutants may require changes to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency monitoring

network in future years. [f you have questions do not hesitate to contact Patricia Schraufnagel,

afmy staft: at 312-886-5955.

D ~incerelYi,

~~ /

Loretta Lehrman

Chief

Air Monitoring and Analysis Section

RecycledlRecyclable • Printed wittl Vegetallfe Oil Based Inks on , 00";" Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
### §8801. Congressional findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) the dependence of the United States on imported petroleum and natural gas must be reduced by all economically and environmentally feasible means, including the use of biomass energy resources; and

(2) a national program for increased production and use of biomass energy that does not impair the Nation's ability to produce food and fiber on a sustainable basis for domestic and export use must be formulated and implemented within a multiple-use framework.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §202, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 683.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 96–294, §1, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 611, provided: "That this Act [enacting chapters 95 to 97, and sections 6347, 7361 to 7364, 7371 to 7375, 8235 to 8235i, 8281 to 8284, 8285 to 8285c, and 8286 to 8286b of this title, sections 1435 and 3129 of Title 7, Agriculture, sections 3601 to 3620 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, section 3391a of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, sections 1146, 1147, 1501, 1511 to 1516, 1521, 1522, 1531, 1541, and 1542 of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining, sections 4515 and 4516 of Title 50, War and National Defense, and sections 2095 to 2098 of the former Appendix to Title 50, amending sections 6240, 6862 to 6872, 8211, 8213, 8214, 8216, 8217, 8221, 8255, 8271, and 8274 to 8276 of this title, sections 341, 342, 3104, and 3154 of Title 7, section 7430 of Title 10, Armed Forces, sections 1451, 1454, 1717, 1723g, and 1723h of Title 12, section 753 of Title 15, sections 590h, 796, 824a–3, 824i, 824j, 1642, 2705, and 2708 of Title 16, Conservation, sections 1141 and 1143 of Title 30, sections 4502, 4531 to 4533, 4551, 4561, and 4564 of Title 50, repealing section 1723f of Title 12, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 6240, 7371, 8211, 8235, 8701, and 8901 of this title, section 3601 of Title 12, section 2701 of Title 16, section 1501 of Title 30, and sections 4501 and 4502 of Title 50] may be cited as the 'Energy Security Act'."

Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §201, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 683, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter, sections 1435 and 3129 of Title 7, Agriculture, and section 3391a of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and amending sections 341, 342, 3104, and 3154 of Title 7, section 753 of Title 15, and sections 590h and 1642 of Title 16, Conservation] may be cited as the 'Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act of 1980'."
#### § 504.7 Service of requests or demands.

Requests or demands for official records or information or testimony under this Subpart must be served on the General Counsel, BBG, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237 by mail or fax at (202) 203-4585 and clearly marked “Part 504—Request for Testimony or Official Records in Legal Proceedings.”
### §6869. Judicial review of final action by Secretary on application

#### (a) Time for appeal; jurisdiction; filing of administrative record by Secretary

If any applicant is dissatisfied with the Secretary's final action with respect to the application submitted by it under section 6864 of this title or with a final action under section 6868 of this title, such applicant may, within 60 days after notice of such action, file with the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the State involved is located a petition for review of that action. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary. The Secretary thereupon shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28.

#### (b) Conclusiveness of findings of Secretary; remand; modified findings by Secretary; certification of record

The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. The court may, for good cause shown, remand the case to the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify his previous action. The Secretary shall certify to the court the record of any such further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

#### (c) Power of court to affirm or set aside action of Secretary; appeal to Supreme Court

The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification, as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

(Pub. L. 94–385, title IV, §419, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1157; Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §577(2), (3), June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 760.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 96–294 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" wherever appearing, and "Secretary's" for "Administrator's".
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 29, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01426-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.C.D.N., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-16-00113-X 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright In her notice of appeal, appellant states she is appealing the trial court’s November 21, 2017 order denying her plea to the jurisdiction. By letter dated December 28, 2017, the Court questioned its jurisdiction of this appeal because the interlocutory order does not appear to be appealable. We instructed appellant to file, by January 9, 2018, a letter brief addressing our concern and cautioned that failure to do so may result in dism issal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appe llant has not filed a response. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only ove r appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A person may appeal from an interl ocutory order that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2017). Appellant, an individual and not a governmental unit, filed the plea to the jurisdiction. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 101.001(3) (West Supp. 2017). Because a–2– governmental unit did not file the plea to the jurisdicti on, the trial court’s or der denying the plea is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(a)(8). Accordingly, we dismiss this ap peal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

171426F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF I.C.D.N., A CHILD No. 05-17-01426-CV On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-16-00113-X. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees Danghai Ho and Tung Ho recover their costs of this appeal from appellant Cheyenne Nguyen.
Judgment entered January 29, 2018.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2894 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2894

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2005

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, as the ``Abraham 
               Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 102 
South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Kentucky, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 180.665 Arguments and briefs. ( a ) Following the submission of evidence at an oral hearing, the parties may file a brief, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both, or, in the ALJ's discretion, make oral arguments.
( b ) Unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ, briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed simultaneously by all parties. In Fair Housing Act cases, such filings shall be due not later than 45 days after the adjournment of the oral hearing. In other cases, they shall be due as the ALJ orders.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
INTERMEDIA CAPITAL PARTNERS IV, L.P.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,552
<SECURITIES>                                    60,507
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,516)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,600
<PP&E>                                         279,300<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 953,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,010
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   953,340
<SALES>                                         63,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,835
<CGS>                                           13,849<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,338)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,946)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,946)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
<F2>INCLUDES PROGRAM FEES AND OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Humbert, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Reargument of motion to prosecute appeal on original papers and typewritten briefs granted upon court’s own motion, and upon reargument, motion granted, Ferdinand F. Bartolo, Jr., Esq., of Buffalo, assigned as attorney to conduct appeal.
§ 306.10 Corrective action. When the agency's FAD states that the aggrieved party has been subjected to prohibited discrimination, the following corrective actions may be taken: ( a ) Selection as a trainee for an otherwise qualified complainant found to have been denied selection based on prohibited discrimination.
( b ) Reinstatement to volunteer service for a complainant found to have been early-terminated as a result of prohibited discrimination. To the extent possible, a terminated volunteer will be placed in the same position previously held. However, reinstatement to the specific country of prior service, or to the specific position previously held is contingent on programmatic considerations, including but not limited to the continued availability of the position or program in that country, and acceptance by the host country of such placement. If the same position is deemed to be no longer available, the aggrieved party will be offered reenrollment in a position in as similar as possible circumstances to the position previously held, or will be given interrupted service status. A reenrollment may require a medical clearance and/or other clearances, and both additional training and an additional two year commitment to Volunteer service.
( c ) Such other relief as may be deemed appropriate by the Peace Corps.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.153 Presentation of claim.

In the event the insured lender is entitled under the contract of mortgage insurance to receive a claim settlement, the mortgagee presents a claim for insurance benefits in accordance with the Secretary's instructions.

[61 FR 14404, Apr. 1, 1996]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DENNIS WILLIAM LEE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-30233

D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00104-PA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dennis William Lee appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

We dismiss. 

FILED

SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lee contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level adjustment

for reckless endangerment during flight under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2. The government

argues that the appeal should be dismissed based on an appeal waiver contained in

the plea agreement. We review de novo whether to enforce an appeal waiver. 

See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Lee’s

contention, the parties’ mutual mistake of law concerning whether he was subject

to the Armed Career Criminal Act does not render the appeal waiver

unenforceable. See United States v. Transfiguracion, 442 F.3d 1222, 1229 (9th

Cir. 2006) (“The inability to rescind a plea agreement based on a mutual mistake of

law applies to criminal defendants as well as to the government.”). Further, the

record on appeal is not sufficiently developed to evaluate whether Lee received

ineffective assistance of trial counsel, nor was trial counsel’s performance so

inadequate that Lee was obviously denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 

See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (declining to

consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal raised in

response to the government’s assertion of an appeal waiver). Accordingly, we

dismiss this appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at

988. 

DISMISSED.

2 14-30233
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2709 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[[[2,5-dichloro4-[(2-methyl-1H-indol-3-yl)azo]phenyl]sulf onyl]amino]-, monosodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ethanesulfonic acid, 

2-[[[2,5-dichloro-4-[(2-methyl-1H-indol-3- 

yl)azo]phenyl]sulf onyl]amino]-, monosodium salt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHANESULFONIC ACID, 2-[[[2,5-DICHLORO-4- 

4 [(2-METHYL-1H-INDOL-3- 

5 YL)AZO]PHENYL]SULFONYL]AMINO]-, MONO6 SODIUM SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2709 IH 

‘‘ 9902.12.14 Ethanesulfonic acid, 2-[[[2, 

5-dichloro-4-[(2-methyl-1Hindol-3-yl)azo] 

phenyl]sulfonyl] amino]-, 

monosodium salt (CAS No. 

68959–19–3) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.12.45) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. v. Bravo Magdaleno, CR 09-346 VRW

 Law Offices Stip. & [Proposed] Order To Cont. Sentencing

Stiglich & Hinckley -1-

MICHAEL HINCKLEY (CSBN 161645)

STIGLICH & HINCKLEY, LLP

149 Natoma Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94103

Telephone: 415-865-2539

Fax: 415-865-2538

Attorney for Defendant

PEDRO BRAVO MAGDALENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. CR 09-346 VRW

Plaintiff,

 v. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE: TO CONTINUE

SENTENCING 

PEDRO BRAVO MAGDALENO, et. al

 

Defendant.

 /

Defendant PEDRO BRAVO MAGDALENO, by and through his counsel Michael

Hinckley, and the United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney

Tarek J. Helou, hereby stipulate and agree to continue the sentencing date in the above entitled

matter from March 11, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. to April 8, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., or to a date that is

convenient to the Court.

Good cause exists for this continuance in that defense counsel was ill with a virus and

was out of the office for two weeks causing the previously scheduled presentence interview to be

canceled and rescheduled. The interview has since been completed and the requested additional

time is needed to complete the presentence report. 

United States Probation Officer Christina Carrubba joins in this request.

///

Case 3:09-cr-00346-VRW Document 230 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. v. Bravo Magdaleno, CR 09-346 VRW

 Law Offices Stip. & [Proposed] Order To Cont. Sentencing

Stiglich & Hinckley -2-

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

/S/ Michael Hinckley

Dated: February 23, 2010 

MICHAEL L. HINCKLEY

Attorney for Defendant

PEDRO BRAVO MAGDALENO

/S/ Tarek J. Helou

Dated: February 23, 2010 

TAREK J. HELOU

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

 

Pursuant to stipulation the date set for sentencing is hereby continued from March 11,

2010 at 2:00 p.m. to April 8, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: . 

HON. VAUGHN R. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

 

2/26/2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cr-00346-VRW Document 230 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. v. Bravo Magdaleno, CR 09-346 VRW

 Law Offices Stip. & [Proposed] Order To Cont. Sentencing

Stiglich & Hinckley

Case 3:09-cr-00346-VRW Document 230 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In  connection  with the  filing  with the  United  States  Securities  and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005 (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies that
(i) in my capacity as an officer of the  Company,  (ii) to my actual  knowledge,
and (iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of ss.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.

     The  above  certification  is  given as of the  date of the  Report  and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report.  The above  certification  is made
severally and not jointly.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have executed this  Certificate  on
November 18, 2005.


                                               By: /s/ William M. McKay
                                                   --------------------
                                                   William M. McKay
                                                   Chief Financial Officer