alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unconventional Oil and Gas Definition – Call with EPA and EIA 11/5/2015

1

Unconventional Oil and Gas Definition – Call with EPA and EIA (ERG Notes)

11/5/2015

Participants:

EPA, OW: Karen Milam, Jesse Pritts, Tom Born, Scott Wilson

EPA, OGC: Pooja Parikh

EPA, OECA: Dan Chadwick

EIA: John Staub, Michael Schaal, Jim Kendell

ERG: Sarah Yates

Shorthand used throughout notes: UOG – unconventional oil and gas; COG – conventional oil and gas

EIA Introductions:

John Staub: Team Lead for upstream oil and gas; leads AEO

Michael Schaal: Director Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels Analysis

- John Staub reports to Michael

Jim Kendell: Statistics – upstream oil, gas, coal statistics; reserves and production data; oil and gas 

monthly production data; working with GWPC on setting up a database of well-level data, including 

some water production data

- EIA is within DOE, but is an independent agency within DOE; EIA does not represent DOE. EIA 

precluded from advocating or making policy decisions.

Feedback on EIA definitions of UOG and COG:

 EIA does not do outreach with stakeholders; EIA mainly gets well data from state agencies, not 

from industry

- EIA doesn’t use term “UOG” in analyses (gave up ~5 years ago); they don’t see UOG as helpful in 

understanding geology or technology; instead, they focus on the geology or technology when 

figuring out the source of production.

- Wrestled with updates as production techniques evolved. Many techniques used in tight 

formations were also deployed in COG formations. Depending on who EIA communicated with 

about “UOG”, definitions were different and changed over time.

o Instead of UOG, EIA moved towards using “CBM”, “tight oil”, “shale gas”, etc.

o EIA defines “conventional” as “reservoir oil and gas”

Definition:

- Explained what EPA is trying to do with proposed rulemaking and definition of UOG.

- EPA: Comments on listing formations as a way to define UOG? EIA publishes annual report 

listing formations as EIA understands them - would this be a source for starting to define 

“UOG”?

o EIA AEO and Assumptions Reports – not required to be published annually.

 Goal of reports: Use individual well data to develop typical production patterns 

from different parts of formations.

 Report data at county level within NEMS model.

 More recent reports include contour maps showing quality of rock and resource 

to further subdivide wells to find wells that perform similarly.
Unconventional Oil and Gas Definition – Call with EPA and EIA 11/5/2015

2

 EPA: Could producer look at that and figure out where there well was 

located and determine if they were tight gas/oil, shale gas/oil?

o EIA: Drillers know what formation they’re drilling into, but many 

other people on wellsite don’t need to know, so they don’t 

(especially people collecting wastewater). 

- EIA provided contact(s) at DOE associated with this issue. 

o Paula Gant, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, DOE 

Fossil Energy

o Michael will follow up if EPA doesn’t get response from DOE.
August 21, 2016

Mr. Stanley Pacheco DreameX Corp
7601 E Treasure Drive North Bay Village, FL 33141

Re: FAA-2015-8650

Dear Mr. Pacheco:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will con tinue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov , we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (T ier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federa l Register for public comments, if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final deci sion on your petition as s oon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
cstr-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

CAPSTAR FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.

STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the CapStar Financial Holdings, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is made by Capstar Financial Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) to be effective as provided herein. 

 

RECITALS:

 

WHEREAS, the Company established the Plan as an equity incentive plan on April 20, 2016; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to permit non-employee directors of the Company to elect to receive the Company’s common stock in lieu of cash payment of fees that are paid by the Company for service as a director.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to authorization of the Company’s board of directors, the Plan is hereby amended effective May 24, 2017 by adding Section 2.5 of the Plan as set forth below:

2.5Stock Awards to Non-Employee Directors.  In the event that the Company provides cash compensation to members of the Board of Directors for service as a director or for service as a member or chairperson of a committee of the Board of Directors (collectively “Cash Compensation”), each director receiving Cash Compensation may elect to receive (subject to limitations in Section 2.5(a)), in lieu of receiving any portion of his or her Cash Compensation, a Stock Award.  Such an election shall be made by filing an election with the Company, in accordance with procedures adopted by the Committee, prior to the time that such Cash Compensation is paid.  All elections made hereunder are subject to the following:

(a)The number of shares of Stock payable under a Stock Award shall be calculated by dividing (i) the amount of the Cash Compensation that would have been payable to the director in the absence of an election, by (ii) the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock on the date that the Cash Compensation would have otherwise been paid.  The value of any fractional Share calculated hereunder shall be paid in the form of cash to the director.

(b)Other than the right of the director herein to elect to receive a Stock Award in lieu of Cash Compensation, the terms thereof shall be subject to the provisions of Section 3.4.

 

 

[Execution Page Follows]

 

 




 



 

EXECUTION PAGE

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company has executed this Amendment to the Plan on this the 30th day of May, to be effective on May 24, 2017.

 

CAPSTAR FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.

 

 


	

	
By:/s/ Robert B. Anderson





	

	
Robert B. Anderson




Chief Financial Officer and 

Chief Administrative Officer
#### 3046.702 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6188

FRANK M. NEFF,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-03487-RDB)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Frank M. Neff seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Neff has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Porter, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 890]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered May 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court properly refused to excuse a prospective juror for cause, as he indicated that he would be able to follow the law as provided by the court *(see People v Rudolph,*266 AD2d 568, 568-569 [1999]; *People v Archer,*210 AD2d 241 [1994]; *People v Lee,*193 AD2d 759, 760 [1993]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 12038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04114]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts


Arts Advisory Panel Meetings

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 
notice is hereby given that 1 meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or 
videoconference.

DATES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for individual meeting 
times and dates. All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are 
approximate.

ADDRESSES: National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 
7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry Hale, Office of 
Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, DC 20506; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed858c81889ead8c9f999ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c242d20293f0c2d3e383f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 202/682-5696.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of September 10, 2019, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United 
States Code.

The Upcoming Meeting Is

    Our Town (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.
    Date and time: March 16, 2021, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Dated: February 24, 2021.
Sherry Hale,
Staff Assistant, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2021-04114 Filed 2-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AMENDMENT
#2


TO
THE SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND


TO
THE $3,725,000 PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This
Amendment #2, dated May 15, 2017 (this “Amendment”), is by and between Car Charging Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the “Issuer”) and JMJ Financial (the “Investor”) (referred to collectively herein as the
“Parties”)


 


WHEREAS,
the Issuer and the Investor entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement Document SPA-10052016 (the “SPA”)
dated as of October 7, 2016, pursuant to which the Issuer issued to the Investor a $3,725,000 Promissory Note (the “Note”),
a Warrant, and Origination Shares. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms
in the SPA.


 


WHEREAS,
the Issuer and the Investor previously entered into Amendment #1 to the SPA and the Note dated March 23, 2017 extending the Maturity
Date of the Note and the date for delivery of the Origination Shares.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Issuer and the Investor agree as follows:


 


1.       Extension
of Maturity Date. In the sentence in the Note (as previously amended) that states “The Maturity Date is the earlier
of May 15, 2017 or the third business day after the closing of the Public Offering,” the date of May 15, 2017 shall be replaced
with the date of June 15, 2017.


 


2.       Extension
of Origination Shares Dates. The references to the date of May 15, 2017 in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 of the SPA (as previously
amended) shall be replaced with the date of June 15, 2017.


 


3.       Conditional
Waiver of Default. The Investor conditionally waives the defaults for the Issuer’s failure to meet the original and
previously amended Maturity Date of the Note and delivery date for the Origination Shares, but the Investor does not waive any
damages, fees, penalties, liquidated damages, or other amounts or remedies otherwise resulting from such defaults (which damages,
fees, penalties, liquidated damages, or other amounts or remedies the Investor may choose in the future to assess, apply or pursue
in its sole discretion) and the Investor’s conditional waiver is conditioned on the Issuer’s not being in default
of and not breaching any term of the Note or the SPA or any other Transaction Documents at any time subsequent to the date of
this Amendment (if the Issuer triggers an event of default or breaches any term of the Note, the SPA, or the Transaction Documents
at any time subsequent to the date of this Amendment, the Investor may issue a notice of default for the Issuer’s failure
to meet the original Maturity Date of the Note and delivery date of the Origination Shares.


 


ALL
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SPA AND THE NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


 


Please
indicate acceptance and approval of this Amendment by signing below:


 


	 	 	 
	Michael
    J. Calise	 	JMJ
    Financial
	Car
    Charging Group, Inc.	 	Its
    Principal
	Chief
    Executive Officer
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

          Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Jay D. Kranzler, the Chief Executive Officer of Cypress Bioscience,Inc. (the “Company”), and Sabrina Martucci Johnson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

| 1.     | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 99.2 (the “Annual Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                  |

Dated:     March 20, 2003

| /s/ JAY D. KRANZLER         |   | /s/ SABRINA MARTUCCI JOHNSON |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                             |   |                              |
| **Chief Executive Officer** |   | **Chief Financial Officer**  |
9.405-1 Continuation of current contracts. ( a ) *Contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.* ( 1 ) Notwithstanding the debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment of a contractor, agencies may continue contracts or subcontracts in existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment unless the agency head directs otherwise. A decision as to the type of termination action, if any, to be taken should be made only after review by agency contracting and technical personnel and by counsel to ensure the propriety of the proposed action.
( 2 ) For contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, unless the agency head makes a written determination of the compelling reasons for doing so, ordering activities shall not— ( i ) Place orders exceeding the guaranteed minimum under indefinite quantity contracts;
( ii ) Place orders under Federal Supply Schedule contracts, blanket purchase agreements, or basic ordering agreements; or
( iii ) Add new work, exercise options, or otherwise extend the duration of current contracts or orders.
( b ) *Ineligible contractors.* A covered agency, as defined in 9.110-1, shall terminate existing contracts and shall not place new orders or award new contracts with contractors that have been declared ineligible pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 983 (see 9.110), except for contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold or contracts for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
[85 FR 67621, Oct. 23, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 61021, Nov. 4, 2021]
844.202-2 Considerations. ( a ) ( 14 ) Where other than lowest price is the basis for subcontractor selection, has the contractor adequately substantiated the selection as being fair, reasonable, and representing the best value to the Government?
Exhibit 31.2


            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, John W. Peters, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Suncrest Global
Energy Corp.;

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

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

4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

    (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

    (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

    (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

    (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


                                   /s/ John W. Peters
Date: September 23, 2004           ___________________________________________
                                   John W. Peters, Principal Financial Officer