alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Alfred Turner, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Queens County, dated October 20, 1961, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered October 21, 1959, convicting him on his plea of guilty, of violation of section 1897 of the Penal Law as a felony and section 483 of the Penal Law as a misdemeanor, and sentencing him to serve a term of three and one-half to seven years. Order affirmed. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
1

Medina, Dayana

From: Reitter, Annabeth <Annabeth.Reitter@domtar.com>

Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:18 PM

To: Medina, Dayana

Subject: RE: Webinar Slides and Request for a list of items 

Attachments: removed.txt; Domtar Webinar Presentation for EPA 08-21-2014.pdf

Hi Dayana,

Attached are the slides from yesterday’s webinar.  Please forward the slides to your team since I do not have everyone’s

email address.  

Thanks,

Annabeth

From: Reitter, Annabeth 

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:21 PM 

To: medina.dayana@epa.gov 

Subject: Webinar Slides and Request for a list of items 

Hi Dayana,

I tried sending the slides from today’s webinar but I received a bounce back due to the file size being too

large.  Tomorrow I will work with my IT staff tomorrow to see about compressing the file, etc.   

We hope you found the webinar to be helpful and informative.  Please let me know if there are any additional follow‐up

questions.   

To avoid any confusion, would you please forward a list of the data items being requested of the three year period of

2011, 2012 and 2013.  We want to ensure we are providing all of the information that is need on your end.   We also

understand a list of the items requested for the SO2 scrubber internals will also be provided.  If you could provide these

lists yet this week, that would be very helpful and gives us time to gather the information.   

Thank you,

Annabeth

Annabeth Reitter

Corporate Manager, Environmental Regulation 

T 715-886-7785 | C 715-459-9257 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Domtar

301 Point Basse Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Domtar reminds you to print responsibly. Learn more about paper as a sustainable choice at paperbecause.com 

This email is for the exclusive use of the addressee and is subject to Domtar Confidentiality Notice.
Exhibit 32(a)





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Bruce J. Haber, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








November 5, 2010/s/
Bruce J. HaberBruce J. HaberChief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS CAUSE NO. 03-14-00621-CV

Frank M. Seliper

PLAINTIFF

vs.

Ethiopian Evangelical Church

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

DEFENDANT THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: THAT THE COURT GRANT A 30 DAY

CONTINANCE—FOR THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF—CURRENTLY DUE ON

FEBRUARY 4th, 2015

The Plaintiff in the caselisted above requests a 30-day extension of the due date for the

Appellant's Brief for the following reason:

The Plaintiff is consulting with a person with legal expertise in the current appeal. That

person has hada family issue - andwill notbeavailable for about 3weeks. The 30-day

extension will be sufficient time to allow forresolution of the family issue and the

completion ofthe Appellant's Briefto be filed.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

o-se

PRINTED NAMEW DEFENDANT

Certificate of Service

I certify that a complete copy ofthis document was delivered tothe Defendant's attorney... by certified

mail.

/'RECEIVED ^

FEB 112015

THIRD COURT CF APPEALS/

V -IFFFREY D. KYIE ./

Certificate ofConference

z/7&/^fi/<r-

&

Asrequired byTexas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certify that1have conferred with

theappropriate party on themerits of thismotion with the following results:

On the 30TM Day ofJanuary 2015, the Plaintiff conferred by phone with opposing counsel- concerning the

above Motion, he stated that he was opposed. He did not give any reason «astowhy he opposed the motion.
1r

(VI

I (a

»

8 3

-n & . m # •
BPL Exploration, /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00087-CV

CODY TEXAS, L.P.,

Appellant

v.

BPL EXPLORATION, LTD.,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6,097

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Clerk’s Notification of Late Record is GRANTED. The clerk’s record is due on 

February 28, 2014.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officerof Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

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

 

 
| Dated:     March 16,  2005 |  /s/  Michael G. Long |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                                                     | Name:                      | Michael G. Long |
|                                                     |                       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
0

20 40 60 80 100 120Weight (%) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

### Temperature (°C) 

## TGA

Universal V4.3A TA Instruments
#### § 206.32 No outstanding unpaid obligations.

In order for a mortgage to be eligible under this part, a borrower must establish to the satisfaction of the mortgagee that after the initial payment of loan proceeds under § 206.25(a), there will be no outstanding or unpaid obligations incurred by the borrower in connection with the mortgage transaction, except for mortgage servicing charges permitted under § 206.207(b) and any future Repair Set Aside established pursuant to § 206.19(f)(1); and the initial disbursement will not be used for any payment to or on behalf of an estate planning service firm.
### §5051. Performance of functions by existing departments or offices rather than new departments or offices

In order to assure that existing Federal agencies are used to the fullest extent possible in carrying out the purposes of this chapter, no funds appropriated to carry out this chapter shall be used to establish any new department or office when the intended function is being performed by an existing department or office.

(Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §411, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 411.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–113, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 394, known as the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4950 of this title and Tables.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 200.925 Applicability of minimum property standards.

All housing constructed under HUD mortgage insurance and low-rent public housing programs shall meet or exceed HUD Minimum Property Standards, except that this requirement shall be applicable to manufactured homes eligible for insurance pursuant to § 203.43f of this chapter only to the extent provided therein. The Minimum Property Standards may be waived to the same extent as the other regulatory requirements for eligibility for insurance under the specific mortgage insurance program involved.

[58 FR 60248, Nov. 15, 1993]
#### CONGER, Respondent, v. CONGER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by Clarence R. Conger, as trustee, against Theodore H. Conger, impleaded. J. E. Bullen, for appellant. A. F. Hayes, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carol Russell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Beverage
Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 14, 2006                               By: Carol Russell
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Carol Russell
                                                         Treasurer
#### Awbrey *v.*Foster.

April 12, 1912.

Trover. Before Judge Freeman. Heard'superior court. May 16, 1911.

*Frank 8. Loftin*and *D. B. Whitaker,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. B. Blackburn,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

“The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless the plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts inquire the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” Civil Code, § 6204.

(a) The law and the facts in this case did not require the verdict rendered, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in the first grant of a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### In the Matter of Shirley Flowers, Appellant, v Katherine Wells et al., Respondents-Respondents, and Joseph J. Previte et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to validate petitions designating petitioner-appellant as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 23, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1977, which, after a hearing, (1) denied the petition and (2) directed the board of elections to remove petitioner’s name from the appropriate ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Section 2590-c (subd 6, par [3]) of the Education Law provides that an elector may only sign one petition. Petitioner’s petitions contained 42 signatures of people who had previously signed petitions for other candidates. Those names were correctly invalidated by Special Term. The fact that the objection to the previously signed names was not made before the board of elections did not preclude the objectors from raising it before Special Term. Special Term has jurisdiction to hear objections to nominating petitions irrespective of whether they were raised before the board of elections (see *Matter of Vona v Cohen,*150 Misc 649, affd 240 App Div 827, affd 262 NY 706). Petitioner’s contention that any other candidate must be a party to this action is without merit. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00242-CR

Tyrone Jenkins a.k.a. Tyrone Smith

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 158th District Court

of Denton County (F-2012-0484-B)

November 25, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UL I AN R I C AR DO C HA C ON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10393 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 0 5 9 - J C MG W F -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d Jul y14, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , W . F L E T C H E R an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jul i an R i cardo C hacon app ea l s the deni alof a m ot i on t o sup pres s e vi dence in h is c r im in a l tr ia l in f

e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt. W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. 

# FI LED AU G 19 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A p p ly in g d e n o v o r e v ie w , w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t th e r e a s o n ab le s us pi c i on unde r l y i ng the i nve s t i ga t orys t op ha d notdi s s i pa t e d a tthe t i m e C ha c on g a v e c o n s e n t to th e s e a r c h o f h is v e h ic le . A s ar e s u lt, th e f a c t th a t C h a c o n w a s in c u s to d ya t th e tim e h e g a v e c o n s e n t d idn o t ta in t h is c o n s e n t. A lth o u g h r e a s o n ab le s us pi c i on m a yha ve be gun t o di s s i pa t e r e ga r di ng the pos s i bi l i tyof aki dnap- i npr ogr e s s , the hi ghl yunus ua l c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd odd e xpl a na t i ons know n t o the p o l i c e a tth e t i me o f

c o n s e n td i dn o te l i mi n a t e r e a s o n ab l e s u s p i c i o n th a ts o me

“ cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty m aybe af oo t . ” U ni ted States v. B erber- T i no co , 510 F . 3d 1083, 1 0 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ; se e al so U ni ted States v. L op ez , 48 2 F . 3d 10 67 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t c o m m it c le a re rr o rin f in d in g C h a c o n ’s c o n s e n t to be vo l un t ary. S ever alfa ct ors i n the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s anal ys i s s up po rt th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n . Se e U ni te d States v . P atay an Sor i ano , 361 F . 3d 49 4, 50 1-04 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). AF F I RME D.
#### § 1508.140 How do I know if a person is excluded?

Check the *Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)* to determine whether a person is excluded. The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains the *EPLS* and makes it available, as detailed in subpart E of this part. When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a person under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded person into the *EPLS.*
#### Henry T. Neely, as Administrator of the Estate of Philip A. Neely, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the claim for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death of the claimant’s intestate based on the State’s negligence in failing to properly maintain a highway. The claimant’s intestate was driving his motorcycle at a place on Route 17 known as Tuseorora Hill when the accident occurred which caused his death. There was no eyewitness to the actual accident although a friend of the decedent who was driving his motorcycle several hundred feet ahead of the decedent testified that a passenger on his motorcycle saw the decedent’s light start to wobble and they turned around and found the decedent lying on the side of the highway. He testified that they were driving at 50 miles per hour, that the decedent had driven his motorcycle over the same highway before and that the road was rough with the inside being pretty good and the outside next to the shoulder quite rough. The motorcycles were driven in staggered formation with the decedent riding the outside next to the shoulder and his friend the inside near the center of the highway. On the extreme edge of the highway about 100 feet from where the decedent’s body was found there was a saucer like depression, which was estimated by different witnesses at from one-half inch to three inches deep. Scratch marks were found leading from the decedent’s motorcycle to within 10 feet of this depression. The decedent and his friend had been at taverns drinking beer from 10:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., had then gone to a diner for coffee and a sandwich and were on their way to a house party when the accident occurred at about 3:00 a.m. The Court of Claims pointed out that a prudent motorcycle operator would not hug the edge of the highway without good reason and held that it was not established that the State was here negligent in maintaining the highway. The court further held that even if such negligence were established *“*the claim would still have to be dismissed because of the negligence of the deceased.” The evidence in this record presented questions of fact- for the court below both as to the negligence of the State and the contributory negligence of the decedent and its determination of those questions is fully supported by the record (cf. *Cramer*v. *State of New York,*4 A D 2d 798). Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-811 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 

GLOBE Program 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and NIGER 

Signed at Niamey August 11, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
NIGER 

Environmental Cooperation: GLOBE Program 

Agreement signed at Niamey August 11, 2005; 

 Entered into force August 11, 2005. 




1
2
3
4
5
### §7351. Submission of comprehensive review

Not later than January 15, 1982, the President shall prepare and submit to the Congress a comprehensive review of each program of the Department. Each such review shall be made available to the committee or committees of the Senate and House of Representatives having jurisdiction with respect to the annual authorization of funds, pursuant to section 7270 of this title, for such programs for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1982.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title X, §1001, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 612.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2432 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Crelan (self-blocked cycloaliphatic 

polyuretdione). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. MURPHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Crelan (self-blocked 

cycloaliphatic polyuretdione). 

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

3 SECTION 1. CRELAN (SELF-BLOCKED CYCLOALIPHATIC 

4 POLYURETDIONE). 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.94 Self-blocked cycloaliphatic 

polyuretdione (CAS No. 

189020–69–7) (provided for 

in subheading 3909.50.50) .. 6.3% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2432 IH 

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