alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State ofUtah 

GARY R. HERBERT 

Governor 

GREG BELL 

Lieutenant Governor 

James B. Martin 

Department of 


Environmental Quality 


Amanda Smith 

Executive Director 

BradT Johnson 

Deputy Director 

July 2, 2012 

Regional Administrator, Region 8 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

Re: Proposed listing ofthe 700 South 1600 East Plume site, Salt Lake City, UT on EPA's 

National Priorities List 

This letter is in response to your letter dated June 11,2012 indicating that the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 (EPA) is considering proposing the 700 South 1600 

East plume site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in order to further the investigation and 

cleanup ofthat site. Placing a site on the NPL is no small decision, and ensuring that the site 

cleanup is protective ofpublic health and the environment is our number one goal. The Utah 

Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) is sensitive to the ramifications oflisting a site 

located in suburban Salt Lake City. We understand that this may be the only mechanism to 

address the source and ongoing impact of the chlorinated solvent contamination that has been 

discovered in both the groundwater resource and numerous springs within the site boundary 

area. 

To that end, DEQ supports the community and the EPA in moving forward with potential listing 

of the site on the NPL. As you move forward, we ask that the agency continue to fully engage 

the elected officials of both the city and county in the listing process and provide opportunity 

for meaningful input not only during the listing process, but subsequent remedial activities as 

well. We also ask that EPA continue to work closely with DEQ affording us substantial and 

meaningful involvement in all aspects ofthis project, i.e., project scoping, planning, technical 

evaluations, community outreach, and enforcement concerns and actions, just to name a few. 

Thank you for your consideration of, not only our concerns, but those of the local elected 

officials as part of this important decision to list the 700 South 1600 East plume on the NPL. 

Thank you also for the Region's assistance already provided during the site investigation of this 

plume. I appreciate the time that both of our staffs have devoted to this site with its unique 

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT 


Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144810 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810 


Telephone (801) 5364402 • Fax (801·536·0061 • T.D.D. (801) 5364414 


www.deq.uwh.gov 

Printed on I00% recycled paper 
Page 2 

challenges to date. DEQ remains committed to working closely with EPA and our local 

officials to properly address and resolve the contamination and the impacts that are posed by 

this site and to ensure that the health and welfare of our citizens and our environment are 

protected and improved. 

Executive Director 

Cc: Governor Gary R. Herbert 

Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City 

Mayor Peter Corroon, Salt Lake County 

Gary Edwards, Director Salt Lake Valley Health Department 

Brent Everett, Director, Environmental Response and Remediation
# ORIGINAL

INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 23-0113 

# FILED PAUL ANTHONY EMRICH,

Petitioner,

v. PETER BLUDWORTH, Warden, Crossroads Correctional Center,

Respondent. 

### FEB 2 8 2°23 Bovven Gteenvvoori Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Paul Anthony Emrich has filed a Petition for Writ ofHabeasCorpus, assertingthat he is due credit for jail time served of222 days applied to his recent sentence from the Missoula County District Court. He includes a copy of the Judgment and a sentence calculation. Upon review, we deem it appropriate to require a response to his Petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date ofthisOrder in which to prepare, file, andserve a written response together with appropriate documentary exhibits. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord and to Paul AnthonyEmrich personally. DATED this 

## „Ntilday ofFebruary, 2023. 02/28/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0113
#### CAROL L. BEAUVILLIER *v.*ALAN R. BEAUVILLIER

(AC 25210)

Lavery, C. J., and Harper and West, Js.

Argued April 27

officially released May 31, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 13



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2004
(the Report), we, Dennis Pok Man Lui and Tim L. Pennington, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, promulgated under Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 31, 2005



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Dennis Pok Man Lui
|Name:                  |  | Dennis Pok Man Lui     
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                      
|/s/ Tim L. Pennington 
|Name:                  |  | Tim L. Pennington      
|Title:                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.3



AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This amendment is made and entered into as of this 7thday of July 2005 by and between Allin Corporation, a Delaware corporation (Employer) and Dean C. Praskach (Employee), a resident of
Pennsylvania.



WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into an
employment agreement (the Agreement) as of June 23, 2000 and as amended on February 13, 2001 and December 8, 2004 and now desire to amend that Agreement by mutual consent.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements herein contained and intending to be legally bound
hereby the parties do hereby agree as follows:



Section 3(e)
of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:



(e) Stock Options. Employee acknowledges receipt of options to purchase stock of Employer under Employers Stock Plans. The options vest ratably at 20% per year on the anniversary of issuance; however, all
options granted to Employee that have not previously expired or been terminated will become fully vested on the date on which (i) Employer sells all or substantially all of its assets, (ii) Employer merges with another entity in a transaction in
which Employer is not the surviving corporation, or (iii) any person or group of affiliated persons other than the shareholders of Employer as of January 1, 2001 owns or controls 40% or more of Employer. Any or all of these occurrences are deemed to
be a Change of Control. At the sole discretion of Employers Board of Directors, additional options may be issued to Employee; however, Employers Board of Directors is under no obligation to grant to Employee additional
options, and any such options granted will be governed by the terms of the option award agreement to be entered into between Employer and Employee at or about the time of any such future option grant.



In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are ratified
and confirmed.



|                     |  |                   |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | --------------------------
|                     |  | ALLIN CORPORATION
|                     |  |                  
|                     |  |                   |  | /s/ Richard Talarico      
|                     |  | By:               |  | Richard Talarico, Chairman
|                     |  |                  
|WITNESS:             |  |                   |  |                           
|                     |  |                  
|/s/ Robert V. Fulton |  |                   |  | /s/ Dean Praskach         
|Robert V. Fulton     |  |                   |  | Dean Praskach
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 This action was reassigned from Judge Jeremy Fogel to Judge Richard Seeborg on

March 18, 2010. 

No. C 09-0933 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 03/22/2010*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JAMES ALAN BUSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEVON KLEIN, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-0933 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On March 3, 2009, plaintiff James Alan Bush filed the instant action against

Defendants Devon Klein and Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (collectively,

“Defendants”), alleging that Defendant Klein disclosed plaintiff’s health condition to certain

members of the public in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 On March 11, 2009, plaintiff filed

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 1, 2009, the Court denied the

application without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals with respect to

the denial. On June 30, 2009, plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case 3:09-cv-00933-RS Document 14 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 09-0933 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Thereafter, this Court ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee of $350.00 by August 10, 2009.

Plaintiff still has not paid the filing fee. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint, and thereby the

action, is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 22, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00933-RS Document 14 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.50 Claims procedures. ( a ) Claims by, or on behalf of, employees of field offices shall be filed in writing with the appropriate Regional Counsel. Claims by, or on behalf of, employees of Department Headquarters shall be filed in writing with the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
( b ) Each written claim shall contain, as a minimum: ( 1 ) Name, address, place of employment of claimant.
( 2 ) Place and date of loss or damage.
( 3 ) A brief statement of the facts and circumstances surrounding loss or damage.
( 4 ) Cost, date, and place of acquisition of each piece of property lost or damaged.
( 5 ) Two itemized repair estimates, or value estimates, whichever is applicable.
( 6 ) Copies of police reports, if applicable.
( 7 ) With respect to claims involving thefts or losses in quarters or other places where the property was reasonably kept, a statement as to what security precautions were taken to protect the property involved.
( 8 ) With respect to claims involving property being used for the benefit of the Government, a statement by the employee's supervisor evidencing that the claimant was required to provide such property or that his providing it was in the interest of the Government.
( 9 ) Other evidence as may be required by the General Counsel.
[36 FR 24427, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 48 FR 6536, Feb. 14, 1983]
§ 245.425 Submission of request for approval to HUD. Upon completion of the tenant comment period, the mortgagor must review the comments submitted by tenants and their representatives and prepare a written evaluation of the comments. The mortgagor must then submit the following materials to the local HUD office: ( a ) The mortgagor's written request for HUD approval of the covered action;
( b ) Copies of all written tenant comments;
( c ) The mortgagor's evaluation of the tenant comments on the proposed conversion or reduction;
( d ) A certification by the mortgagor that it has complied with all of the requirements of § 245.410, § 245.415, §§ 245.416 through 245.419, as applicable, § 245.420, and this section; and
( e ) Such additional materials as HUD may have specified in writing.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0310)
### §9821. Nondiscrimination provisions

(a) The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance for any program, project, or activity under this subchapter unless the grant or contract with respect thereto specifically provides that no person with responsibilities in the operation thereof will discriminate with respect to any such program, project, or activity because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, political affiliation, or beliefs.

(b) No person in the United States shall on the ground of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under, or be denied employment in connection with any program or activity receiving assistance under this subchapter. The Secretary shall enforce the provisions of the preceding sentence in accordance with section 2000d–1 of this title. Section 2000d–2 of this title shall apply with respect to any action taken by the Secretary to enforce such sentence. This section shall not be construed as affecting any other legal remedy that a person may have if such person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in connection with, any program, project, or activity receiving assistance under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §632, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 498.)
#### Rodrigue JEAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-15569

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 23, 2007.

Maria Elena Perez, Maria E. Perez, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Sally M. Richardson, Anne R. Schultz, Lisa A. Hirsch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rodrigue Jean, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate his 148-month sentence for drug trafficking crimes, which was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In his § 2255 motion, Jean argued that his attorney was ineffective because, *inter alia,*counsel failed to advise him of his right to testify, or to call him to testify on his own behalf.

At the hearing on whether counsel was ineffective, trial counsel, David Joffe, testified that he: (1) had 16 years experience; (2) met with Jean at least 8 times before the start of the trial; (3) advised Jean that a negotiated plea would be in his best interest; (4) would have advised Jean, while discussing the possibility of entering a plea, of all of his constitutional rights, including the right to testify; (5) thought that Jean would make a good witness; (6) gave Jean a pad of paper during trial to take notes or ask questions; and (7) had never, and could not, prevent a client from testifying. Joffe stated that Jean advised him that he did not want to testify.

Rodrigue Jean contradicted his attorney’s version, testifying that: Joffe never explained to him that he had the choice to testify at trial, and Joffe never told him that he would make a good witness or judged his credibility. Jean asserted that he did not know that he was the one who *854ultimately decided whether he would testify, as Joffe had made all of the decisions in the trial, and Joffe disregarded his request to testify. He conceded that it had been his decision to go to trial, rather than take a plea. The magistrate judge issued a report, which credited trial counsel’s assertion that he informed Jean of his right to testify and that it was Jean’s decision to make.

“Credibility determinations are typically the province of the fact finder because the fact finder personally observes the testimony and is thus in a better position than a reviewing court to assess the credibility of witnesses.” *United States v. Ramirez-Chilel,*289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir.2002). In a case where the witnesses’ versions of events are in direct conflict with one another, we will affirm the fact finder unless “the judge credits exceedingly improbable testimony,” or the “facts are unbelievable.” *Id.*Here, we find no reversible error in the fact finder’s determination of credibility in this case.

AFFIRMED.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1790 Prepped byKeeiaRichards



### Document

Number: 

# 209 ) ll-E- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:16

PM Sheet 209of 250P. 2 

## R-90-3 7 

# H - E- 5 OMB BRIEFING NE W SOURC E REVIEW

PAR T C/ DPROPOSE DRULEMAKING Septembe r 28 , 199 4
I . PROPOSE DRUL E CHANGE S

• Direc t Repons e t o 199 0 Amendment s t o CleanAi r Ac t • Par t DNonattainmen t Rule s

4 0 CF R51.16 5 fo r Stat e Plan s Ne w4 0 CF R52.1 0 fo r Federa l Progra mReplacin g Par t 51 , Appendi xS Revis e 4 0 CF R52.2 4 Provision s fo r Constructio n Ban s

• Par t C Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) Rule s 4 0 CF R51.16 6 fo r Stat e Plan s 4 0 CF R52.2 1 fo r Federa l Progra m



# t

# xS0*%i II . PAR T DNONATTAINMEN T REGULATION S \.f\jS-^ 0 ^ U\}\ \ 

# 0- Basi c Requirement s \m-- • ._^« . , Reasonabl e Furthe r Progres s \ . ^P^J-*^ " Emission s Offset s Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rat e Analysi s o f Alternatives/Environmenta l Justic e Concern s Statewid e Sourc e Complianc e Assuranc e o f Adequat e Pla n Implementatio nP. 3

Provision s fo r Ozon e Nonattainmen t Area s Are a Classification s Majo r Stationar ySourc e Emission s Offse t Ratio s Majo r Modification s N 0 XProvision s Us e o f Shutdow n Credit s Provision s fo r Ozon e Transpor t Region s Portion s o f OT RDesignate d Attainmen t Portion s o f OT R Classifie d a s Marginal , Moderate , an d Nonclassifiabl e Provision s fo r C ONonattainmen t Area s Moderat e Area s Seriou s Area s Provision s fo r PM-1 0 Nonattainmen t Area s Moderat e Area s Seriou s Area s PM-1 0 Precursor s Provision s fo r S0 2 , N0 X , andLea dNonattainmen t Area sP. 4 

# V

Additiona l Genera l Requirement s Fo r Nonattainmen t Area s Oute r Continenta l Shel f Source s Stationar yInterna l Combustio n Engine s Marin e Vessel s Fugitiv e Emission s Exclusio n Transitio nIssue s andNonattainmen t NS RFI P NS RSI P Revision s Du e Area s Redesignate d t o Nonattainmen t Additiona l Transitio n Guidanc e Emissio nOffse t Interpretativ e Rulin g
Statutor y

Restriction s Fo r Ne w Source s
NS RTriba l Implementatio nPlan sP. 5

> .

III . PAR T C PS DREGULATION S Continuin gPS DRequirement s

• Regulatio no f Statospheri c Ozone-Depletin gSubstance s Unde r PS D

• Clas s I Are a Boundar y Change s

• Exemptionfo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s

• Genera l NS RProvision s

N 0 XImpact s o n Ozon e Nonattainmen t Oute r Continenta l Shel f Source s Enhance d Monitorin g Contro l Technolog yInformatio n Operatin g Permit s Fugitiv e Emission s Exclusio n

• Change s t o Definition s

Stationar ySourc e Municipa l Incinerator s Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y

• Analysi s o f Alternatives/Environmenta l Justic e Concern s

• NS RTriba l Implementatio nPlan s
### §1512. Mexican Water Treaty

The Congress declares that the satisfaction of the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty from the Colorado River constitutes a national obligation which shall be the first obligation of any water augmentation project planned pursuant to section 1511 of this title and authorized by the Congress. Accordingly, the States of the Upper Division (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and the States of the Lower Division (Arizona, California, and Nevada) shall be relieved from all obligations which may have been imposed upon them by article III(c) of the Colorado River Compact so long as the Secretary shall determine and proclaim that means are available and in operation which augment the water supply of the Colorado River system in such quantity as to satisfy the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty together with any losses of water associated with the performance of that treaty: Provided, That the satisfaction of the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty (Treaty Series 994, 59 Stat. 1219), shall be from the waters of the Colorado River pursuant to the treaties, laws, and compacts presently relating thereto, until such time as a feasibility plan showing the most economical means of augmenting the water supply available in the Colorado River below Lee Ferry by two and one-half million acre-feet shall be authorized by the Congress and is in operation as provided in this chapter.

(Pub. L. 90–537, title II, §202, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 887.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 90–537, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 885, known as the Colorado River Basin Project Act, which enacted this chapter and sections 616aa–1, 620a–1, 620a–2, 620c–1, and 620d–1 of this title, amended sections 616hh, 620, and 620a of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 620, 620k, and 1501 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1501 of this title and Tables.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:16 PM

To: 'nick@mcmahonhelicopters.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Information: McMahon Helicopter Services (FAA-2015-1068)



### June 9, 2015

Dear Mr. McMahon:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1068). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), m odel(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) sh ould include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 23, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### § 242.68 Disclosure and verification of Social Security and Employer Identification Numbers.

The requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5, regarding the disclosure and verification of Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers, and Employer Identification Numbers by “applicants for and participants in” assisted mortgage and loan insurance and related programs, apply to this program.
#### § 1421.13 Certification.

*Certification* means the determination by the Board, its agents or representatives, of the results of an election.