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

Gove or incere 

# SCOTT WALKER

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE OF WISCONSIN P.O. Box 7863 MADISON, WI 53707
February 11, 2011 Susan Hedman Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Mail Code: R-19.1 Chicago, IL 60604-3507 

## FEB .17 2011 °AIR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Subject: Wisconsin Designation Recommendations for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Dear Administrator Hedman: I am pleased to send this letter in compliance with section 107(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act. All 72 counties in Wisconsin should be designated as attainment for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Available statewide air quality monitoring demonstrates that both rural and urban NO2 concentrations are well below the level of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and support an attainment classification. Table 1 summarizes NO2 concentrations observed in Wisconsin since 2006. We are aware that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new monitoring requirements as part of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. The WDNR will continue to work with U.S. EPA Region 5 to evaluate and finalize the monitoring network. However, we believe that air quality designations should be based on available monitoring data We request that the U.S. EPA wait until sufficient monitoring data is collected and implementation guidance is available before issuing attainment or nonattainment designations for future air quality standards. Thank you for the opportunity to submit the State of Wisconsin's recommendation on this impo or air quality matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please fee ee o contact WDNR Air Management Bureau Director John Melby at 608-264-8884.

cc: C = thy Stepp, Secretary, WDNR

WISCONSIN IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS WWW.WISGOV.STATE.WI.US • (608) 266-1212 • FAX: (608) 267-8983

### TABLE 1: WISCONSIN NO 2 MONITORING DATA

Location Parameter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1

. Ashland, WI th A, •

98 70-11e Conc. - - - 16 ppb Desi: Value - - Cassville, WI 98 3 %-ile Conc. - - - 29 ppb

Design Value . - Manitowoc, WI 2 98 th %-ile Conc. 15 ppb 11 ppb 15 ppb 9 ppb 31 ppb



### Design Value - . 13 ppb 11 ppb 18 ppb Milwaukee, WI 98 th %-ile Conc. 48 ppb 50 ppb 44 ppb 49 ppb 70 ppb

Design Value - -

_ 47 ppb 47 ppb 54 ppb Potawatomi, WI -98th %-ile Conc

. - - - 5 ppb

Design Value - - - -

. , -

1 This data is from January - October 28. 2 This monitor only operates from June 1 — August 31.

WISCONSIN IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS WWW.WISGOVSTATE.WWS • (608)266-1212 FAx: (608) 267-8983
### §3519. Access to information

Under the conditions and procedures prescribed in section 716 of title 31, the Director and personnel in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall furnish such information as the Comptroller General may require for the discharge of the responsibilities of the Comptroller General. For the purpose of obtaining such information, the Comptroller General or representatives thereof shall have access to all books, documents, papers and records, regardless of form or format, of the Office.

(Added Pub. L. 104–13, §2, May 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 183.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3519, added Pub. L. 96–511, §2(a), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2825; amended Pub. L. 97–258, §3(m)(3), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1066, related to access to information prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 104–13.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1995, except as otherwise provided, see section 4(a) of Pub. L. 104–13, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title.
§ 883.106 Applicability and relationships between HUD and State agencies. ( a ) *Applicability.* This subpart A applies to contract authority set aside for a State Agency.
( b ) *General responsibilities and relationships.* Subject to audit and review by HUD to assure compliance with Federal requirements and objectives, Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) shall assume responsibility for project development and for supervision of the development, management and maintenance functions of owners.
( c ) *Certifications and HUD monitoring.* ( 1 ) Generally, when reviewing any of the certifications of an HFA required by this part, HUD shall accept the certification as correct. If HUD has substantial reason to question the correctness of any element in a certification, HUD shall promptly bring the matter to the attention of the HFA and ask it to provide documentation supporting the certifications. When the HFA provides such evidence, HUD will act in accordance with the HFA's judgment or evaluation unless HUD determines that the certification is clearly not supported by the documentation.
( 2 ) HUD will periodically monitor the activities of HFA's participating under this part only with respect to Section 8 or other HUD programs. This monitoring is intended primarily to ensure that certifications submitted and projects operated under this part reflect appropriate compliance with Federal law and requirements.
[61 FR 13592, Mar. 27, 1996]
#### § 93.3 Waivers.

HUD may, upon a determination of good cause and subject to statutory limitations, waive any provision of this part and delegate this authority in accordance with section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)).
### §2120. Online access of founding fathers documents

The Archivist may enter into a cooperative agreement to provide online access to the published volumes of the papers of—

(1) George Washington;

(2) Alexander Hamilton;

(3) Thomas Jefferson;

(4) Benjamin Franklin;

(5) John Adams;

(6) James Madison; and

(7) other prominent historical figures, as determined appropriate by the Archivist of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 110–404, §4(a), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4283.)

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

#### Transfer of Funds

Pub. L. 110–404, §4(b), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4283, provided that:

"(1) In general.—The Archivist of the United States, in the role as chairman of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission may enter into cooperative agreements pursuant to section 6305 of title 31, United States Code, that involve the transfer of funds from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to State and local governments, tribal governments, other public entities, educational institutions, or private nonprofit organizations for the public purpose of carrying out section 2120 of title 44, United States Codes [sic].

"(2) Report.—Not later than December 31st of each year, the Archivist of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [now Committee on Oversight and Accountability] of the House of Representatives a report on the provisions, amount, and duration of each cooperative agreement entered into as authorized by paragraph (1) during the preceding fiscal year."
§ 972.121 Developments subject to this subpart. ( a ) This subpart is applicable to any development not identified before October 21, 1998, for conversion, or for assessment of whether such conversion is required, in accordance with section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, approved April 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321-279—1321-281). Developments identified before October 21, 1998, continue to be subject to the requirements of section 202 and part 971 of this chapter until these requirements are satisfied. Thereafter, the provisions of this subpart apply to any remaining public housing on the sites of those developments.
( b ) The developments to which this subpart is applicable are subject to the requirements of section 33 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437z-5).
( c ) The provisions of this subpart cease to apply when the units in a development that are subject to the requirements of this subpart have been demolished.
#### Carl Ray SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-15355.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 8, 2007 *.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Victor S. Haltom, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Ward A. Campbell, Esq., Jean M. Mari-novich, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, NOONAN, Circuit Judge, and SCHIAVELLI **, District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable George P. Schiavelli, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Carl Ray Smith is currently serving a life sentence for a robbery conviction constituting his third “strike” under California sentencing law. In his habeas petition, he challenges that conviction, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases. The Magistrate Judge, in a report adopted by the District Court, found that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel because of the lack of prejudice resulting from any of the claimed instances of his attorney’s deficient conduct. Smith alternatively argued that counsel engaged in a pattern and practice of misconduct sufficient to establish a presumption of prejudice. The district court found that even assuming the truth of Smith’s allegations, the lack of resulting prejudice would prevent the granting of any relief. Under the applicable Supreme Court standards, no presumption arises unless the failure of counsel is complete. *See Bell v. Cone,*535 U.S. *615685, 697, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); *United States v. Cronic,*466 U.S. 648, 658-59,104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Accordingly, the district court denied both claims, and saw no need for an evidentiary hearing.

In this appeal, Smith essentially argues that the district court erred in assuming the existence of misconduct without holding an evidentiary hearing. However, a hearing would have been required only if he alleged facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief. *Turner v. Calderon,*281 F.3d 851, 890-91 (9th Cir.2002). Both the state court and the district court held that he did not allege facts that would entitle him to relief because there could have been no prejudice resulting from the alleged misconduct.

The state court’s decision was thus not “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law needed to warrant habeas relief. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Kenmar
Advisory Corp., the general partner (the "General Partner") of The Fulcrum Fund
Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), and Chief Financial Officer of the
General Partner of the Partnership hereby certify that:

         (1)      the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
                  Partnership for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the
                  "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.


Dated: August 14, 2003                         /s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
                                               ---------------------
                                               Kenneth A. Shewer
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                               Kenmar Advisory Corp.
                                                General Partner


                                               /s/ Maureen Howley
                                               -------------------
                                               Maureen Howley
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                               Kenmar Advisory Corp.
                                                General Partner
Request for Dismissal With Retained Jurisdiction; Order: Case No. 09-1900 JSW

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 

 TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, Esq. (No. 148213) 

GENE A. FARBER, ESQ. (No. 44215) – Of Counsel 

158 Hilltop Crescent 

Walnut Creek, CA 94597-3452 

Tel: 925/588-0401 

tim@thimeschlaw.com 

genefarber@gmail.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff HOLLYNN D’LIL 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HOLLYNN D’LIL, 

vs. 

TAQUERIA MI PUEBLO; DAVID 

BEATRIZ; GEORGE H. MOORE 

LOGGING AND LUMBER, INC.; and 

DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. CV 09-1900 JSW 

Civil Rights 

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH 

RETAINED JURISDICTION TO 

INTERPRET AND ENFORCE THE 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; [Proposed] 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

/ 

Thanks to the efforts of the ADR Department and Mediator Jamie Dupree, Esq., the 

parties are pleased to report they have reached a complete settlement in all respects, including 

plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, statutory damages, and reasonable statutory attorney fees, 

litigation expenses and costs. The parties have memorialized the settlement through written 

agreement, and request the dismissal of the action with prejudice, with the Court maintaining 

//// 

158 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUT CREEK, CA

94597-3452 

(925) 588-0401 

Case 3:09-cv-01900-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-01900-JSW Document12 Filed02/17/10 Page1 of 2
Request for Dismissal With Retained Jurisdiction; Order: Case No. 09-1900 JSW — 2 — 

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 

158 HILLTOP CRESCENT

WALNUT CREEK, CA

94597-3452 

(925) 588-0401 

continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement agreement. 

Dated: December 2, 2009 THIMESCH LAW OFFICES

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ. 

GENE FARBER, ESQ. – Of Counsel 

/S/ Signature Authorized 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CRAIG YATES 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

Dated: December 2, 2009 MITCHELL B. GREENBERG, ESQ. 

ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & 

EMERY 

/S/ Signature Authorized 

Attorneys for Attorneys for Defendants 

TAQUERIA MI PUEBLO; DAVID BEATRIZ; and 

GEO. H. MOORE LOGGING AND LUMBER, INC. 

ORDER

SO ORDERED. 

 . 

Dated: JUDGE JEFFREY S. WHITE 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case3:09-cv-01900-JSW Document12 Filed02/17/10 Page2 of 2

Based upon the parties' stipulation, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. However, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. February 17, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01900-JSW Document 13 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3316 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3316

     To require the National Park Service to make necessary safety 
improvements to the Statue of Liberty and to fully reopen the Statue to 
                              the public.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2005

 Mr. Weiner (for himself, Mr. Farr, Mr. Owens, Mr. Meeks of New York, 
 and Mr. Putnam) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the National Park Service to make necessary safety 
improvements to the Statue of Liberty and to fully reopen the Statue to 
                              the public.

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

SECTION 1. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Save the 
Statue of Liberty Act''.
    (b) Requirement for Safety Improvements.--Not later than September 
11, 2005, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National 
Park Service and using funds available to the Secretary for this 
purpose, shall commence necessary safety and other related improvements 
to the Statue of Liberty so that it may be fully reopened to the public 
to provide the same access as before September 11, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert H. Taft, appellant, v. Dr. A. Heym, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,060.

Suit on note transferred by endorsement to plaintiff. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Norman K. Anderson and Benjamin Clarke, for appellant. Wyman, Hopkins, McKeever & Colbert, for appellee; Vincent D. Wyman and Austin L. Wyman, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40589

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

versus 

JOEL MELO-CEDANO, Also Known as Joel Melo-Serrano, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:15-CR-741-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Melo-Cedano appeals his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326, claiming that “[o]rganic principles of American law (the law of nations) prohibits

[sic] Congressional criminalization of America’s borders.” He maintains that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40589 Document: 00513800728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
No. 16-40589

2 

“[c]riminalizing borders is anathema to the law of nations (an organic part of 

America’s common law).” He posits that § 1326 is unconstitutional as applied 

to him because he was under the impression that he could apply for adjustment 

of status only from within the United States. The government has moved for 

summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellate brief or, alternatively, for an 

extension of time to file its brief. Melo-Cedano has moved to file an untimely 

response to the motion for summary affirmance. 

Because Melo-Cedano did not present the foregoing issues to the district 

court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Howard, 

766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1015 (2015). To establish plain error, Melo-Cedano must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, 

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

Melo-Cedano has not shown any clear or obvious error with respect to 

the constitutionality of § 1326. See United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 

135-36 (2010); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. In addition, “the crime of illegal reentry is not a specific intent crime, and a mistake of law is thus not a defense.” 

United States v. Flores-Martinez, 677 F.3d 699, 712 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Melo-Cedano’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 1326 is 

insufficient to show error, plain or otherwise. See id.; Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

The motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. See Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary. Melo-Cedano’s motion to file an untimely response is GRANTED. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40589 Document: 00513800728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2016
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.1



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

In  connection  with the  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  INTREorg
Systems,  Inc.  for the year  ended  December  31,  2008,  I,  Russell  K. Boyd,
President,  Chief Executive Officer,  Principal  Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting  Officer of INTREorg Systems,  Inc., hereby certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

     a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of INTREorg Systems, Inc. for the year
          ended  December 31, 2008,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          INTREorg  Systems,  Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008,  fairly
          presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
          results of operations of INTREorg Systems, Inc.


Date: April 15, 2009


                                                /s/ Russell K. Boyd
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Russell K. Boyd, President
                                                Chief Operating Officer,
                                                (Principal Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Accounting Officer)




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.