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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73202-73203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28803]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0123; FRL-9920-13-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 73203]]

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 17, 2014, direct 
final rule approving a revision to the Illinois State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) to phase out the requirements of the Stage II Vapor Recovery 
program.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 62352 on October 17, 
2014, is withdrawn effective December 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source 
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061, 
acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted this revision as a modification to the SIP for gasoline vapor 
recovery requirements. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if 
adverse comments were submitted by November 17, 2014, the rule would be 
withdrawn and not take effect. On October 20, 2014, EPA received an 
adverse comment and, therefore, is withdrawing the direct final rule. 
EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon 
the proposed action also published on October 17, 2014. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.720 published in the 
Federal Register on October 17, 2014 (79 FR 62352) on page 62356 is 
withdrawn effective December 10, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-28803 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 1.453-10 [Reserved]
Order filed September 16, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00343-CV

____________

VINCENT LILLY, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 74682I

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due August 28, 2014. No brief or motion for extension 

of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 15, 2014, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### § 1.1402(a)-16 Exercise of option.

A taxpayer shall, for each taxable year with respect to which he is eligible to use the optional method described in § 1.1402(a)-14 or § 1.1402(a)-15, make a determination as to whether his net earnings from self-employment are to be computed in accordance with such method. If the taxpayer elects the optional method for a taxable year, he shall signify such election by computing net earnings from self-employment under the optional method as set forth in Schedule F (Form 1040) of the income tax return filed by the taxpayer for such taxable year. If the optional method is not elected at the time of the filing of the return for a taxable year with respect to which the taxpayer is eligible to elect such optional method, such method may be elected on an amended return (or on such other form as may be prescribed for such use) filed within the period prescribed by section 6501 and the regulations thereunder for the assessment of the tax for such taxable year. If the optional method is elected on a return for a taxable year, the taxpayer may revoke such election by filing an amended return (or such other form as may be prescribed for such use) for the taxable year within the period prescribed by section 6501 and the regulations thereunder for the assessment of the tax for such taxable year. If the taxpayer is deceased or unable to make an election, the person designated in section 6012(b) and the regulations thereunder may, within the period prescribed in this section elect the optional method for any taxable year with respect to which the taxpayer is eligible to use the optional method and revoke an election previously made by or for the taxpayer.
---

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Smart-tek Solutions,
Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10KT/A Amendment No. 2 for the six month period
ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds
knowledge and belief:

(1)      The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Brian BonarBrian Bonar Chief Executive
Officer, Presidentand Director

September 9, 2011

---
# C_2016136EN.01005001.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/50

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — Wisniewski v Commission

(Case F-29/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 136/72)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16/6/2014, p. 44.

1

---
* 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

February 26, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40476

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH RAY TEAGLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-5-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith Ray Teagle appeals the 120-month sentence he received

after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in interstate

commerce after having been convicted of a felony. Teagle argues,

for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by

failing to adequately articulate its reasons for imposing a nonGuidelines sentence. He also contends that his sentence was

unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Teagle fails to

demonstrate any error, plain or otherwise, with regard to the

reasonableness of the non-Guidelines sentence imposed by the
No. 06-40476

-2-

district court. See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 434-36

(5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707-10

(5th Cir. 2006). 

Teagle argues, for the first time on appeal, that the

district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 

§ 922(g)(1) because there was no evidence that his possession of

the firearms was in or affected interstate commerce. He concedes

that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in

United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001),

cert. denied 122 S.Ct. 1113 (2002), but raises it for possible

review by the United States Supreme Court. 

Also, for the first time on appeal, Teagle argues that the

district court erred by applying the Sentencing Guidelines as

advisory. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United

States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2005), but raises it to

preserve it for possible review with the United States Supreme

Court. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the annual report on
Form 10-K of Markham Woods Press Publishing Company, Inc. (the "Company") for the twelve month period ended December
31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officer’s knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 30, 2017 | By: | /s/ Donna Rayburn | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------- | 
|                     |     | Donna Rayburn     | 
|                     |     | President         | 





|Date: March 30, 2017 | By: | /s/ Donna Rayburn | 
|-------------------- | --- | ----------------- | 
|                     |     | Donna Rayburn     | 
|                     |     | Treasurer         |
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5204]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2244-000]


Energy Northwest; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project 
Operation

March 4, 2010.
    On March 7, 2008, Energy Northwest, licensee for the Packwood Lake 
Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant 
to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations 
thereunder. The Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project is located on Lake 
Creek, a tributary to the Cowlitz River, in Lewis County in 
southwestern Washington.
    The license for Project No. 2244 was issued for a period ending 
February 28, 2010. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2244 is issued to 
Energy Northwest for a period effective March 1, 2010 through February 
28, 2011, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or 
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of 
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before 
February 28, 2011, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise. If the project is 
not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that 
Energy Northwest is authorized to continue operation of the Packwood 
Lake Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on 
its application for a subsequent license.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5204 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
§ 1.263(a)-6 Election to deduct or capitalize certain expenditures. ( a ) *In general.* Under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), taxpayers may elect to treat capital expenditures as deductible expenses or as deferred expenses, or to treat deductible expenses as capital expenditures.
( b ) *Election provisions.* The sections referred to in paragraph (a) of this section include: ( 1 ) Section 173 (circulation expenditures);
( 2 ) Section 174 (research and experimental expenditures);
( 3 ) Section 175 (soil and water conservation expenditures; endangered species recovery expenditures);
( 4 ) Section 179 (election to expense certain depreciable business assets);
( 5 ) Section 179A (deduction for clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling property);
( 6 ) Section 179B (deduction for capital costs incurred in complying with environmental protection agency sulfur regulations);
( 7 ) Section 179C (election to expense certain refineries);
( 8 ) Section 179D (energy efficient commercial buildings deduction);
( 9 ) Section 179E (election to expense advanced mine safety equipment);
( 10 ) Section 180 (expenditures by farmers for fertilizer);
( 11 ) Section 181 (treatment of certain qualified film and television productions);
( 12 ) Section 190 (expenditures to remove architectural and transportation barriers to the handicapped and elderly);
( 13 ) Section 193 (tertiary injectants);
( 14 ) Section 194 (treatment of reforestation expenditures);
( 15 ) Section 195 (start-up expenditures);
( 16 ) Section 198 (expensing of environmental remediation costs);
( 17 ) Section 198A (expensing of qualified disaster expenses);
( 18 ) Section 248 (organization expenditures of a corporation);
( 19 ) Section 266 (carrying charges);
( 20 ) Section 616 (development expenditures); and
( 21 ) Section 709 (organization and syndication fees of a partnership).
( c ) *Effective/applicability date* — ( 1 ) *In general.* This section applies to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, § 1.263(a)-3 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 2011, applies to taxable years beginning before January 1, 2014. For the effective dates of the enumerated election provisions, see those Code sections and the regulations under those sections.
( 2 ) *Early application of this section.* A taxpayer may choose to apply this section to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.
( 3 ) *Optional application of TD 9564.* A taxpayer may choose to apply § 1.263(a)-6T as contained in TD 9564 (76 FR 81060) December 27, 2011, to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2014.
[T.D. 9636, 78 FR 57745, Sept. 19, 2013]
609 P.2d 69

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Ralph Tauarr ELLERSON, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1621.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Oct. 11, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1979.

Review Granted Dec. 4, 1979.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III and Lynn Hamilton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Richard S. Oseran, Pima County Public Defender by P. Donovan Riddle, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Appellant was charged with possession of a narcotic drug and with three prior felony convictions. He was found guilty by a jury, admitted a prior conviction of burglary, and was sentenced by the trial court to the Arizona State Prison for not less than 10 nor more than 12 years. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it ruled that if he testified, one of his prior convictions could be used to impeach him. He also contends that it was prejudicial error to sentence him in absentia and that his sentence was excessive. We affirm.

After the trial court ruled the pri- or burglary conviction admissible for impeachment purposes, appellant took the witness stand. In order to “draw the sting”, appellant’s counsel asked him if he had a prior burglary conviction. Appellant replied in the affirmative. He now claims the trial court erred in its ruling since it failed to comply with Rule 609 of the Rules of Evidence for Arizona Courts by failing to make an on the record determination that the probative value of the conviction on the *255issue of truthfulness outweighed the prejudice to him.1 A party may, by his acts or omissions waive, or be estopped to make, objections to the admission or exclusion of evidence; such waiver or estoppel may arise from some affirmative act done after the evidentiary ruling. Cf. *Anson v. Fletcher,*192 Neb. 317, 220 N.W.2d 371 (1974). Appellant was not forced to elicit the testimony concerning the conviction. He could have waited for the state to do so on cross-examination. His strategic decision waived any challenge to the ruling.

Appellant asks us to reconsider our holding in *State v. Davis,*115 Ariz. 3, 562 P.2d 1370 (App.1977) and *State v. Camino,*118 Ariz. 89, 574 P.2d 1308 (App.1977) wherein we held that sentencing in absentia under Rule 26.9, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We decline to do so.

Appellant’s contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit. He was sentenced as a habitual offender under A.R.S. Sec. 13-1649(A) which meant that the minimum sentence was 10 years.2

Affirmed.

RICHMOND, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.

1

. See *State v. Cross,*123 Ariz. 494, 600 P.2d 1126 (1979).

2

. Possession of heroin under A.R.S. Sec. 36-1002.02(A) was punishable by imprisonment of five years to life.
#### William Kobryn *v.*Gladys W. Kobryn

Eing, O. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued June 7

decided June 25, 1968

*Julius Watstein,*with whom was *Herbert Watstein,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*H. Gibson Guión,*with whom, on the brief, was *Hadley W. Austin,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The finding is not subject to correction in any respect which will assist the plaintiff. Any correction to which the plaintiff is entitled would not change the result in any way. *Taylor*v. *Taylor,*154 Conn. 340, 341, 225 A.2d 196; *Sipp*v. *Sipp,*151 Conn. 705, 197 A.2d 73. The assignment *of*error on the evidential ruling was *not*briefed *639and must therefore be considered abandoned. *Bartlett*v. *Flaherty,*155 Conn. 203, 204, 230 A.2d 436; *Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc.*v. *Suto,*150 Conn. 251, 254, 188 A.2d 493; *Hannifan*v. *Sachs,*150 Conn. 162, 165, 187 A.2d 253.

The conclusions which the court reached find ample support in the subordinate facts.

There is no error.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Public Hearing Information 

McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility 

Proposed PSD Permit Amendment No. NU 05-01

November 20, 2014 

Purpose:  

Today, we are holding a public hearing to receive your comments on EPA’s proposed Clean Air Act

Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit amendment for the McElmo Creek Unit Main Flare.  

 EPA Region 9 is amending the permit to add pollution limits and other terms and conditions as

required by a federal Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S.

Inc.) for the existing Main Flare at the site.

 This action will include Best Available Control Technology limitations and conditions to

minimize flaring.

 Other than the replacement of a fixed speed fan with a variable speed fan to provide better

pollution control at the Main Flare, this permit action does not authorize any new construction

or modification of existing equipment at the site.

Comments:

Today, we are seeking your comments on the proposed permit amendment, including the following:

1. The Best Available Control Technology determination for the Main Flare;

2. The effects, if any, on Class I areas;

3. The effect of the proposed permit amendment, if any, on ambient air quality; and

4. The attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Information on Other Actions Related to the McElmo Creek Unit site:

Although not the topic of today’s hearing, below is information to learn more about other actions

related to the McElmo Creek Unit site:

 Title V Operating Permit  

Contact: Tennille Begay, Navajo Nation EPA

Phone: 928‐729‐4248

Email: tbbegay@navajo‐nsn.gov  

 Underground Injection Control Permit and Groundwater Questions

Contact: William E. Freeman, Navajo Nation EPA

Phone: 505‐368‐1041

Email: nnepauic@frontiernet.net
ATTACHMENT D-2 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

HEARING CERTIFICATION 

This certifies in accordance with the provisions of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

51 .102 that the following actions were taken regarding the adoption of R.C.S.A. section 22a-174-

43 and the amendment of R.C.S .A. section 22a-174-30: 

1) The public hearing was held on December 19, 2003 as announced in the notice of 

hearing (copy attached); 

2) In accordance with the notice, materials were available for review in each Air 

Quality Control Region (AQCR) in Connecticut; 

3) Copies of the notice were mailed to the directors of the air pollution control 

agencies in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts along with a 

copy to the Director of the Air Management Division of Region I of the U.S . 

Environmental Protection Agency; and 

4) The notice of hearing was published in newspapers as follows: 

NewMaper AQCR Date 

Connecticut Law Journal November 18, 2003 

Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) 43 November 18, 2003 

Hartford Courant 42 November 18, 2003 

New London Day 41 November 18, 2003 

The Register Citizen (Torrington) 44 November 18, 2003 

September 23, 2004 

Date /s/ Merrily A. Gere 

Bureau of Air Management 

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 

79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127 

http ://dep .state .et.us 

An Equal Opportunity Employer